From ben.leigh at cwcom.net Mon Jun 17 21:23:44 2002 From: ben.leigh at cwcom.net (Ben Leigh) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:23:44 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] ADMIN: Book 5 Discussion to OT Chatter or Announcements References: Message-ID: <001901c21645$43106e60$d401a8c0@bennew> No: HPFGUIDX 37905 Hi can someone please tell me how to set this list to receive e-mail in digest format? Many thanks Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: cindysphynx To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 4:17 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] ADMIN: Book 5 Discussion to OT Chatter or Announcements Just a quick reminder from Hexquarters that discussions of possible release dates for OoP should take place off the main list. To reiterate, HP-Announcements is the place for confirmed information about the OoP release date. This includes messages with a link to a *real* news report from a reputable and verifiable source, not just rumor and speculation. The Announcements list is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPfGU-Announcements/ OT-Chatter is the place for OoP handwringing, hand-holding, wild- eyed speculation, wishful thinking, insider information, 12-step programs and the like. The OT-Chatter list is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/ Thanks for your cooperation. Cindy --The Magical Moderators Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT ________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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Search Stamp powered by www.mailround.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ben.leigh at cwcom.net Sat Jun 22 21:23:36 2002 From: ben.leigh at cwcom.net (Ben Leigh) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 22:23:36 +0100 Subject: reply to Plot Holes/Portkeys/Sirius vs. Severus Message-ID: <001301c21a33$12610e40$d401a8c0@bennew> No: HPFGUIDX 38055 Hello Finwitch, you quoted Dragon Hide is immune to magic If this is the case how would wizards wanting to control the dragon do so if spells against dragonhide were ineffective? In response to you quote about the knife, my reasoning behind this is that Harry was so preoccupied and scared by what was going on around him, the thought did not cross his mind. Also I doubt he would have been able to perform a summoning charm tightly bound to a headstone! Interesting ideas Ben this is my first post! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ben.leigh at cwcom.net Sat Jun 22 21:38:41 2002 From: ben.leigh at cwcom.net (Ben Leigh) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 22:38:41 +0100 Subject: Barty Crouch Jnr Message-ID: <001f01c21a35$2dad0da0$d401a8c0@bennew> No: HPFGUIDX 38056 In answer to Melanie's question, Do we know whether or not Barty Crouch, Jr was a slytherin? I can't remember. If we refer towards the end of GoF, Dumbledore says "Its not what makes a wizard, but what one chooses to become, your dementor has destroyed a pure-blood as old as any, and look what he chose to make of his life." My idea of the sorting hat, though highly magical, I don't think can predict the future. From the little we know about Barty Crouch Jnr, he was talented, ambitious and hard working so a possible house may have been Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff. If anyone has any other ideas please let me know. Ben [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ben.leigh at cwcom.net Sat Jun 22 21:51:45 2002 From: ben.leigh at cwcom.net (Ben Leigh) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 22:51:45 +0100 Subject: Pettigrews magical hand Message-ID: <002801c21a37$01031d60$d401a8c0@bennew> No: HPFGUIDX 38057 Uncmark quoted I'm guessing would give Pettigrew much stronger magic. It might also enable Voldemort to control Pettigrew if he ever is tempted to repay his debt to Harry through some good act. Hmm interesting thought, however I think that LV won't be able to interfere with Peter repaying his debt to Harry, however strong and powerful he may be. If you remember from the 3rd book Dumbledore said to Harry "One day you may be very glad that you saved Pettigrews life take my word for it" and goes onto saying something like this is magic at its very deepest and is impenetrable". I assume this means that Peter has taken it upon himself to re-pay Harry back for saving his life, though highly unlikely could Peter play a part in Voldermorts downfall? Hence Voldermort would be powerless to intervene. Ben [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ben.leigh at cwcom.net Sun Jun 23 23:45:39 2002 From: ben.leigh at cwcom.net (Ben Leigh) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 00:45:39 +0100 Subject: Life in Debt (was peters magical hand) Message-ID: <00b501c21b10$14acf0a0$d401a8c0@bennew> No: HPFGUIDX 38096 Hi Edis Now that is a thought, however we have read how evil LV is, I reckon its not in LV's nature to do something like that! Ben [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Sat Jun 1 01:25:45 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 01:25:45 -0000 Subject: Oh, but he Is nice (was: Remus isn't THAT nice) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39259 I have to agree about him being in denial. I can certainly see him dashing off after the trio because of a calculated risk, but he shows absolutely no sign of remembering what night this is. Even after Snape reminds him of his potion, we don't see a single, "You know guys, we really need to move it." > Remember that Snape, who has seen Remus in his werewolf state, is > terrified of him. This is the same Snape who bounces into rooms > holding mountain trolls, threatens Dark Wizards, risks death and > torture by spying on Voldemort and is prepared to face off a wizard > he believes has killed twelve people with a single curse. And he's > *scared* of Remus. I don't see Snape fearing Remus. "Hating" is the term I would use. They are not the same thing. From alina at distantplace.net Sat Jun 1 01:34:55 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 21:34:55 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Oh, but he Is nice (was: Remus isn't THAT nice) References: Message-ID: <015e01c2090c$89ffdea0$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39260 Original: I have to agree about him being in denial. I can certainly see him dashing off after the trio because of a calculated risk, but he shows absolutely no sign of remembering what night this is. Even after Snape reminds him of his potion, we don't see a single, "You know guys, we really need to move it." Reply: Considering how much has happened that night, wouldn't it be natural to assume that Lupin was really overwhelmed? Even overwhelmed enough to forget about time. After all, he had just found out the whole truth about the night that the Potters died. Besides, he might've simply forgotten that he didn't take his potion that night. > Remember that Snape, who has seen Remus in his werewolf state, is > terrified of him. This is the same Snape who bounces into rooms > holding mountain trolls, threatens Dark Wizards, risks death and > torture by spying on Voldemort and is prepared to face off a wizard > he believes has killed twelve people with a single curse. And he's > *scared* of Remus. I don't remember seeing evidence of Snape being scared of Lupin. He probably was terrified when he was younger, but it seems to have all gone into hate over the years. Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ "I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.361 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 07/05/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Sat Jun 1 01:47:05 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 01:47:05 -0000 Subject: Leave Snape out of this :-) (Was:Re: Lupin Is Not An Airhead! ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39261 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > Just here? Is there ever any good reason to believe Snape at any > point in the entire series to date? [grin] ( Except possibly when he > thinks Harry isn't watching him). > Please provide one, just one reference where Snape is a liar. Vindictive, yes. Petty, yes. Arbitrary, yes. A real pain-in-the- backside, yes. But untruthful? Never. Marcus From alina at distantplace.net Sat Jun 1 01:51:53 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 21:51:53 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Leave Snape out of this :-) (Was:Re: Lupin Is Not An Airhead! ) References: Message-ID: <017c01c2090e$e8dd3b00$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39262 Original: Please provide one, just one reference where Snape is a liar. Vindictive, yes. Petty, yes. Arbitrary, yes. A real pain-in-the- backside, yes. But untruthful? Never. Marcus Reply: In book four, when Hermione got her teeth cursed into growing even longer. He said he couldn't see a difference! Hey, it can constitute as a lie, can't it? Oh alright, he was just being mean. I agree, however, Snape is a rotten person, but as Hagrid has pointed out in book 1, he's a Hogwarts professor, thus he is someone that Dumbledore trusts. With his actions so far, I don't think Snape wants to betray that trust, no matter how rotten he is. Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ "I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.361 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 07/05/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Sat Jun 1 01:54:13 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 01:54:13 -0000 Subject: Oh, but he Is nice (was: Remus isn't THAT nice) In-Reply-To: <015e01c2090c$89ffdea0$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39263 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Alina" wrote: > Original: > I have to agree about him being in denial. I can certainly see him > dashing off after the trio because of a calculated risk, but he shows > absolutely no sign of remembering what night this is. Even after > Snape reminds him of his potion, we don't see a single, "You know > guys, we really need to move it." > > Reply: > Considering how much has happened that night, wouldn't it be natural to assume that Lupin was really overwhelmed? Even overwhelmed enough to forget about time. After all, he had just found out the whole truth about the night that the Potters died. Besides, he might've simply forgotten that he didn't take his potion that night. > He has been transforming all his life. His greatest fear is a full moon. Snape tells him that he was bringing the potion when he finds the map. He tells his life history of being a werewolf. Not once does he flinch thinking about tonight's the night. From alina at distantplace.net Sat Jun 1 02:00:08 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 22:00:08 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Oh, but he Is nice (was: Remus isn't THAT nice) References: Message-ID: <019201c20910$0f92c980$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39264 He has been transforming all his life. His greatest fear is a full moon. Snape tells him that he was bringing the potion when he finds the map. He tells his life history of being a werewolf. Not once does he flinch thinking about tonight's the night. Reply: I still think it comes down to him forgetting to drink his potion while in a hurry and then believing that he actually did drink it. That way he would be docile even if transformed. Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ "I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.361 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 07/05/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From editor at texas.net Sat Jun 1 03:24:47 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 22:24:47 -0500 Subject: Snape is an HONEST nasty person (was Lupin Is Not An Airhead! (WAS Remus: Once more with feeling, ) References: Message-ID: <00d001c2091b$e2c7b120$5a7d63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39265 Pip!squeak, responding to Cindy (I think), quipped > > Now, is there any good reason to believe Snape here? > > Just here? Is there ever any good reason to believe Snape at any > point in the entire series to date? [grin] ( Except possibly when he > thinks Harry isn't watching him). *growls* Point of fact. Snape is not a liar. Snape is an obstructionist, and Snape firmly believes in his own interpretations of events. We may disagree with said personal interpretations, but they *are* honestly-held different interpretations. Snape has his faults, but lying is not one of them. I'm sitting here trying to think of one instance where he has lied, and I'm pulling a blank (except possibly about believing the kids were Confunded, which I don't think he did). --Amanda, S.E. (Snapologist Extraordinaire) From fluxed at earthlink.net Sat Jun 1 04:45:39 2002 From: fluxed at earthlink.net (A. Vulgarweed) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 23:45:39 -0500 Subject: Hurt/Comfort, Fictional Men and the Women Who Love Them, Including Writers In-Reply-To: <1022825768.1804.84047.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39266 oh, a subject embarrassingly close to my heart. Elkins posits: > >Why don't all characters partaking of the hurt-comfort dynamic appeal >equally to all readers? For all the excellent reasons mentioned, and I would like to underline that just getting kicked around a lot doesn't suffice. The character in question I think must be someone who is _powerful_, even a bit _intimidating_, who has more than a bit of Edge, when he isn't getting kicked around--it's the *contrast* between power and vulnerability that does it, not just the vulnerability by itself. I'd say the most archetypal example of this in fiction that I know of is the relationship between Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester. It's not the most politically-correct love story ever, is it? She's a very young orphan with grim prospects; he's much older than her, much richer, much more powerful...he's her _employer_! But then, he is revealed to have a Terrible Secret, to be Lonely and Guilty...and then there is a FIRE! and his Terrible Secret is revealed and destroyed, and he himself, who was Almost Snatched Away Into Death and Narrowly Escaped, is now Shamefully Relieved But Grieving Terribly as well as _physically handicapped_. And reader, she married him! They're _still_ swooning over this one. A really Dead Sexy fictional character, methinks, is one whom Reader-as-heroine might feel a little bit _afraid of_ *and* protective of at once, or at different times. To me Snape, Sirius, and Lupin could all easily fit this criterion (so, I say, could Moody, but I need to get to know him a little better); Ron does not 'cause he's a *kid*. No Edgey frisson there--no 14-year-old is commanding enough or has enough of a Past. (Though Ron _does_ have a large crush-following among girls near his age group, almost as big as Draco's--all the Weasley boys do). > And Ana suggests: > >I always thought something went awry with Snape's characterization. > > And then Porphyria says, damning the torpedoes: > >Ha! See I have my own theory, which is basically that JKR is more hot >for Snape than she wants to admit, but that might be a rather >idiosyncratic interpretation. :-) Hee hee heee, see, I think so too! And I think it snuck up on her. Pretty much everyone who's ever written a decent amount of fiction, decent fiction or otherwise, has had something like this happen to them (and I'm gonna use the male pronoun here 'cause that's who we mean, but of course female characters can do it too): You create a character to fill a plot function. You carefully choose his archetype/stereotype and have every plan in mind for him to be a shadowy, possibly very unlikable caricature. And, like Milton's Lucifer, he dramatically rebels. You find yourself thinking about him nearly as much as your protagonist. He steals scenes. He schemes in your ear and behind your back. He does things you *never* intended for him to do, and yet when you try to change the scenes to fit your original master plan, to tone him down and keep him in his place, you eventually have to admit it's not as good as when you let the character do it _his_ way. I'm not saying for _sure_ something like this is happening to Rowling, I really have no idea...but some of the signs are there. (One good sign is the way readers react--do they seem fascinated by this supposedly-minor character beyond all reason?) I do have faith in her ability to ball-gag him when she needs to: I don't think we'll be reading _Severus Snape and the Order of the Phoenix_ next year....but y'know, it certainly is a common and potent phenomenon. I also wanna throw in for fun, extra-canonical as it is, that....have you seen any of the stories about, or by, a certain gifted but rather...acerbic...science teacher who once terrorized little Jo Rowling,widely acknowledged to be one of the predominant models for Snape? (There've been a few of these at Leaky Cauldon, I think) Seen any *pictures* of him? He's really quite...um...Dead Sexy....in a sort of distinguished gothic mad-scientist-who-would-probably-be-played-by-Jeremy-Irons-or-(yes!)-Alan-Rickma n sort of way. Terrorized little Jo might not pick up on this, but the deep and weird writers-mind of grownup J.K. who's getting her revenge very well might. > >My evidence for this is exactly what you specify here: Snape is >depicted, especially in anger or extreme emotion, so much more >*viscerally* than most of the other characters. While consciously we >ought to regard Snape's profusion of blood, spit and sebum as >disgusting, there really is something sneakily erotic about it, since >these are inherently private as well as tactile bodily fluids. For a >character who is so deliberately enigmatic and guards his privacy so >fiercely, his body is strangely porous, with stuff that's supposed to >remain inside leaking outside, or as with the blushing and vein >throbbing, making an unwelcome appearance, whenever he's in a >vulnerable situation. Ooooh. You've read some theory on penetration and the abject, haven't you? I hear the perverse veracity, the absolute you-know-it's-true of this statement, even though I don't know what sebum is and am not sure I want to. > >OK, lets move on to Lupin, Marina said: > ><<< >I'm *extremely* Bent, see, and the problem with Lupin for me is that >he handles his suffering too well. <...> Lupin goes along through >life, being kind to everyone who needs his kindness and forgiving to >everyone who needs his forgiveness, giving out chocolate at the >appropriate moments. I admire the heck out of him, but he's just too >darn *sane* for me to crush on, Edge or no Edge. Oh, but is he? He says very scary things, "lazily." He's certainly powerful. As has been pointed out repeatedly, he sure can't remember the potion (needs a Wolfsbane skin patch)...which I take to possibly mean there might be something deep and dark in there that doesn't _want_ to be in control. I have no doubt he'd have cheerfully eaten that crunchy-rat and not even gotten heartburn. Oh, sure, the exhaustion part's kinda dull, but think about *why* he's tired. Sometimes a man _does_ just need to roll over and go to sleep, I don't always hold it against him. Imagine the fluids that werewolves spew. And what I want to know is--where has he been? He's the only Marauder whose whereabouts for the past 12 or so years aren't completely accounted for. How will the werewolf survive? On the streets? Doing what? In the woods? Hmmmmmm. working on a case for DeadSexy! Moody now, scaring myself, AV whose boyfriend is nothing like any of these guys--fantasy's a *totally* different animal. From fluxed at earthlink.net Sat Jun 1 05:16:23 2002 From: fluxed at earthlink.net (A. Vulgarweed) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 00:16:23 -0500 Subject: Hermione's Fling, Dubious Grownups In-Reply-To: <1022894830.1228.80623.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39267 Pippin wrote: >> >> Laura said: >> >> <<probably am not the best authority on what is "mature", but >well..jeez. Ron seems very unhealthy and immature right now >when it comes to *coughs* matters of the heart...<<< > >And the other two aren't? What's Hermione playing at with Viktor >anyway? Is anybody really comfortable about her being in a >relationship with a seventeen year old boy? Um...yeah. In fact, up until you posted this, it would never occur to me that anyone would be *un*comfortable with it. Why? Well, maybe because of his unsavory Durmstrang connections, and the lurk of Karkaroff, and the weirdness of Quidditch stardom....not to mention his susceptibility to Imperius. If the age difference is what you mean, no, I don't think it's that significant--especially not with the way he defers to her. (Rather puppy-doggish, it seems to me, which makes him seem younger to me than he is; Hermione seems prematurely old; these two factors combined, she might come out a bit ahead of him). Also, if her birthday is Sept 19, one possible way to read that is that she is one of the oldest in the class--if there's a question, wouldn't they want to give a Muggle-born as much time as possible to adjust?. So she might be 15 for almost all of GoF. A 17-year-old and a 15-year-old is even less of an issue. I think she's "playing at" acknowledging the first good-looking boy who's ever responded to her _as a girl_ (not really counting Neville, who I think she feels too 'maternal/teacherly' towards to ever consider romantically) straightforwardly and in a complimentary fashion (unlike Ron's dithering). It's not totally "mature" I guess but I can't say I blame her. She's probably curious to learn more about Durmstrang and Bulgaria, too. Nothing wrong with that either. They're _both_ at an age for short-lived experimental dating--cut 'em some slack. > > >Okay, you can substitute "jaded and cynical" taste instead >>From my "mother of one grown and one teenaged male" >perspective, there are few male characters besides >Dumbledore who don't have some growing up to do. Does anybody ever finish growing up until they die? And the women! Pomfrey's got an obvious codependent caretaker complex and some serious control issues, as does Molly: McGonagall is so repressed it hurts to look at her, Trelawney's an obvious case of narcissistic personality disorder, as is, oddly, Narcissa; Madam Maxime cannot accept her heritage...we won't even mention Petunia! (I'm exaggerating for the fun of it, of course.) That's what makes the books realistic in their cartoonishly exaggerated way--even grownups are never perfectly grown-up. Unless they get to be 150. > >I think Hermione is a wonderful girl but she's not just about >perfect (I have no hope of convincing anyone who believes that >she is. One thing I've learned from this list: love is blind.) Who has said that she is? In real life, she'd drive me up a tree (but I'd grudgingly admire her). But she is definitely one of my favorite *characters*, self-righteous cluelessness and all. She's going to achieve great things, that girl. But she'll always be a bit of a bull in a china shop. > >Sometimes, IMO, Hermione is just as clueless as Ron when it >comes to taking the emotional temperature. As a rallying cry, >"You've got just as much right as wizards to be unhappy!" leaves >something to be desired, don't you think? Yes, indeedy, and it's *funny.* Ron is funny too, of course (and more often than Hermione, intentionally so). > >Why? Ron seems pretty much at peace with himself by the end >of GoF. He's made a decision to let go of his grudge against >Viktor, as shown by asking for the autograph. He doesn't tease >Hermione about Viktor wanting a "vord". He manages a >conversation and a handshake with Fleur without turning purple >and staring. All his concern on the trip home is for Harry, >Hermione and his brothers. He doesn't express any envy of >Harry for winning the Tri-wizard gold that I can recall. I just don't >see this seething bundle of adolescent resentment--if anybody >embodies that, it's Draco. > >Pippin I agree. I think Ron really rallies here. Do you think the realization that he almost lost Harry--that they are all now well aware they are living in wartime and could lose anyone at any time for that matter--had something to do with it? > Irene: > >Yes, I'm comfortable with what we have seen so far. >She really needed someone who respects her love of learning >and sees her on her own and not as a part of the trio. Yes, that too. All three of them are in a little bit of danger of over-fusion, IMO. Dating outside the Trio (and even outside of Hogwarts) seems more a healthy thing to do than not. luv AV From alina at distantplace.net Sat Jun 1 05:15:27 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 01:15:27 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione's Fling/Ron's problem with it References: Message-ID: <01c301c2092b$586bd1e0$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39268 Irene: >She really needed someone who respects her love of learning >and sees her on her own and not as a part of the trio. I personally think that Ron's biggest problem with Hermione wasn't the fact that she was seeing someone else but him, it was the fact that she not only stepped outside the limits of their little menage a trois, but stepped outside the limits of House and even school. From personal experience I'd say that children get very comfortable in small, close-knit circles (I think that's the real reason the four founders divided Hogwarts into Houses) and are extremely reluctant to leave them. Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ "I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.361 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 08/05/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From katzefan at yahoo.com Sat Jun 1 05:36:07 2002 From: katzefan at yahoo.com (katzefan) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 05:36:07 -0000 Subject: Neville: and some random thoughts. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39269 This is somewhat late but here goes anyhow: > In POA, before he takes on the boggart... >Lupin says ... "Neville, I belive you live with your grandmother?" >"Er yes" said Neville nervously "But I don't want the boggart to >turn into her either" >Is Neville really that scared of his gran or is it just that he >doesn't want to hurt even something that looks like a member >of his own family? That's an interesting point, about Neville being afraid of his gran. I was more of the impression it was (b) he didn't want to even try to hurt something that looks like a member of his own family. His gran (from the little we've heard of her) sounds formidable, but not at all unkind ... *not* like, say, Aunt Marge. >And what is he nervous about, the boggart or people >asking him why he was bought up with his gran? So far, Neville has come across as afraid of nearly everything, including his own shadow. In most of the books he's jittery and has very little confidence in himself. And since he's so frightened of Snape, it's not surprising he'd be nervous about facing even an imitation of Snape. > I don't understand why Neville hasn't mentioned his parents to >anyone? Could it be that he is intimidated by Harry? .... Or does >he feel responsiable in a way, to what >happened, is there more to his story then meets the eye? >I think there is something for that last question because after >Moody's lesson in TGOF, Neville say (in a high voice) >"oh hello", intresting lesson wasn't it? I wonder what's for >dinner, I'm starving aren't you?" ...etc." >Neville is in fact trying to say the same thing twice!!! ...why does >he repeat it and get the second time wrong. Is it something to >do with the fact that he is trying to forget what he saw because >he had witnessed or is it a side effect of of memory charm? ... >Also Neville talks in a very high voice after the dementors enter >the train in POA. Neville's about the same age as Harry, and the torture of his parents took place *after* Voldemort's downfall, so I think it's quite possible he was a witness - either a direct eyewitness or at least somewhere nearby where he would have had to listen to his parents' screams. His parents may have hidden him and ordered him to stay put, leaving him torn between obeying them (and his own instinct for self-preservation) or rushing out to them when the trouble started. Alternately, Voldemort's supporters may have simply shoved him off to one side with no way to escape. I don't think he was a direct eyewitness, because frankly, he would have been too good a weapon to waste. The mere threat of harm to their (very young) child (perhaps accompanied by a few light flicks of the Cruciatus curse) would, I think, have been something neither of his parents would have been willing to defy. As for his comments about lunch, I wonder if he was struggling under the same thing as Harry in Book 3, when the Dementors' presence caused him to hear his mother screaming and pleading with Voldemort. If Neville was a witness (in any sense) to his parents' deaths, I would think he'd be in some shock after watching the spider under the Cruciatus curse; it probably brought back terrible memories. I got the impression he was trying to cover it by making casual conversation, but it wasn't working, which is why he repeats himself and can't quite get the sentence straight (and also why he's speaking with a higher- than-normal voice; if he were in shock and distress he might have been having some trouble breathing properly). Also, Harry has had two or three people (Lupin for sure, and I think also Sirius and Dumbledore) with whom he can talk about his parents' deaths and the Dementors' effects. We've had no indication so far that Neville has talked to anyone. His gran may not be able to cope with discussing it, since it would have been either her daughter or son who died. That's an interesting point about a memory charm; I wonder if someone used one on Neville to try and help him deal with things. If so, it seems to be losing its effectiveness.... >...And on a random side note, is Neville allowed into >Hogmeads now becasue in POA, McGonagall banned him >from all future Hogsmead visits, was that just for the third year >or no? I would think it would be just for the rest of the year. Anything further would really be unnecessarily harsh. >...Neville is quite powerful because surely the caldrons have >some sort of charm on the to stop >them melting in a ways to cause an acciedent especially in >school where anythong could happen. Even in the muggle >world, it'll take some doing to melt pewter that casually. There was some speculation quite some time back that Neville's apparent lack of magical powers may be another side-effect of his parents' horrible deaths, but that at some point in a future book, he's going to be really backed against a wall and somebody's going to get a nasty surprise, because he's a much more powerful wizard than even he knows. From alina at distantplace.net Sat Jun 1 06:02:48 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 02:02:48 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Neville: and some random thoughts. References: Message-ID: <01d501c20931$f59315e0$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39270 ----- Original Message ----- From: katzefan Also, Harry has had two or three people (Lupin for sure, and I think also Sirius and Dumbledore) with whom he can talk about his parents' deaths and the Dementors' effects. We've had no indication so far that Neville has talked to anyone. His gran may not be able to cope with discussing it, since it would have been either her daughter or son who died. No, remember, Dumbledore told Harry that both Neville's parents are insane and in St. Mungo's and that Neville visits them with his grandmother regularly, even though they dont' recognize him. I think the visits are an indication that Neville's grandmother is indeed the person he is sharing the experience with. Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ "I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.361 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 08/05/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pollux46 at hotmail.com Sat Jun 1 06:48:43 2002 From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 06:48:43 -0000 Subject: Characters Overacting and Overreacting Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39271 Charis Julia wrote: > >> JKR as a rule hardly ever has her characters overacting. Quite to >>the contrary: from Harry almost all the time to Remus and Sirius's >>brief and to?the ?point reconciliation, her heroes rarely indulge >>in emotional outbursts even when fully entitled to them. Cindy answered: >I'd *really* like to see Charis Julia's observation work, because it >it so very interesting. Well, err, actually, I'm going to have to disappoint you Cindy by reluctantly admitting that very little of what one might call actual * work* has been taking place here. Not as such. Not strictly speaking, no. . . But since you went to the trouble of actually _asking_, since you even had the foresight to use flattery in the form of a very wining _ interesting_ , since you actually went out of your way to decorate the cunningly inserted "really" with little * asterisks*, well, I guess I'm going to have to do my best anyway. Specially for * you*, Cindy. But don't you come turning your nose up afterwards at my * work* saying it isn't good enough or anything. I've put a good ten minutes into thinking this out I'll have you know! * * * Now. Uh?huh?hum! Here goes. . . I do think that the characters in Potterverse are extremely reluctant to exhibit emotion. They are very controlled. Not only by themselves, but also, I would argue, by the author herself. JKR does not like emotional outbursts. I'm not sure she even fully approves of them. Cindy is right in observing that overacting and overreacting is a quality generally reserved for the villains of the series. Cindy would also include Sirius and Hagrid here, I however am not sure I fully agree. But I'll get to that in minute and here let me only observe that I think Hagrid's little tendency to, err, create a scene is supposed to be more of a reflection of his natural simplicity than anything else. Hagrid overreacts because he just doesn't know any better. The reader obviously isn't expected to despise Hagrid because of his outbursts, but, to my understanding of the character, they are clearly supposed to be read as a flaw. Most importantly however they add a lot to the outlining of his personality in that it is these outbursts (for me at least) that make Hagrid, well, < looks furtively around for Hagrid supporters ready to pin her to a tree> not, err, quite, well, human. `Cos he isn't really, is he? There is something positively, well, beastial about him, something that makes the discovery of his giant descent in GoF believable not solely as a plausible explanation of his huge proportions. I don't know about anybody else on this list but when I got to that part of the Yule Ball Chapter I was like "Uh? huh. That's right. Totally right." Somehow the fact that Hagrid should be half?giant and most especially the fact that giants in the Potterverse should be "not very nice" just fits for me. After all Hagrid does often gives me the impression of a dog to tell you the truth. A really faithful dog that growls and has no qualms about attacking too if his master is threatened in any way and a dog that whimpers and howls when it's hurt. And he does in a way indeed give the impression of being "too big to be allowed" in the rest of the WW, not only physically but also as far as his emotions and modes of expression are concerned. Of course he * is* allowed by Dumbledore and I wonder if that means something on any level further than the obvious anti?discrimination one. And before I drop this subject I'll tell you one more thing. I'll tell you where exactly it is that Hagrid chills my blood: PoA, "Cat, Rat and Dog", just after Buckbeak `s execution: "The very last rays of the setting sun were casting a bloody light over the long?shadowed grounds. Then, behind them, they heard a wild howling. "Hagrid," Harry muttered." But, emm, I think I'm digressing a bit, aren't I? Right, back to the original question: Wizards keeping their cool. Yes, they do have an astounding capacity for it, don't they? Cindy wrote: >After all, Harry rarely has an emotional >outburst. His yelling in the Shrieking Shack "He killed my mum and >dad" is about the extent of it. This outburst is nothing in light >of the many opportunities for Harry to come unhinged but he >doesn't. Ron and Hermione (especially Ron) tend to keep their cool >and not fall apart. Dumbledore, McGonagall both don't overreact to >most things, although McGonagall went to pieces there at the >departure of Crouch Jr.'s soul. Yes, Harry is of course the supreme paradigm of self--control, isn't he? Heck the kid won't even cut himself a break at the end of GoF and allow himself the good bawling, wailing, blubbering boo?hoo he deserves after the ordeal he's just been through. He feels a "burning, prickling feeling in the corners of his eyes" of course. He has the urge to let out a "howl of misery", sure. But he never gives in. He fights against these annoying, humiliating emotions and what's more prevails. And despite all his addiction to the Mirror of Erised and his Marge?inflating, he's never once as far as I can remember has shed one tear for the loss of his parents. And then there's the many other telling little phrases littered around in the books as well: "* Dear Professor Dumbledore, Sorry to bother you, but my scar hurt this morning. Yours sincerely, Harry Potter.* Even inside his head the words sounded stupid." "There was no point in putting in the dream, he didn't want it to look as though he was too worried."?GoF "He felt it would be too melodramatic to say "to kill me"?GoF Harry is the apotheosis of emotional control. And the other heroes in the books aren't left far behind are they? Ron does keep his cool admirably in sticky situations and even when the focus is on his personal feelings he usually manages to save the situation by doing something manful like shift the blame to somebody else ("I don't know why you're bothering to lie"?GoF, to Harry) or fling out ridiculous, unfounded accusations ("You're?you're-- * fraternising with the enemy*, that's what you're doing!"?GoF, to Hermione). There are feelings of course, like his hatred of Malfoy, that Ron has nothing to be ashamed about and therefore exhibits fearlessly, but otherwise he's a pro at disguising and even flatly denying compromising emotions: "Well?that just proves ? completely missed the point--" His tearing off of Bulgarian Seeker miniatures' arms is always done in private. I'm not quite so sure about Hermione ? she has been known to fling herself around people's necks and break down?but she's learning: at the end of PoA for all her "whimpering" and "screaming" she keeps it totally together when swinging feet out of nowhere (Way to go, Hermione!) and Stunning Professors is in order and in GoF, though she does burst into tears when the boys make it up, this time she remembers to flee from the room at once. I could go on boring everyone for ever here with more examples, of course. I will only however challenge Cindy's evaluation of Sirius and Hagrid's control performances: >There's the Sirius Problem. Sirius >overacts *Big Time* in the Shrieking Shack. I mean, he is really >chewing the scenery there. He has good reason to be miffed >(confronting the man who set him up), but the clawing the air and >all is almost over the top. > >There's also the Hagrid Problem. Giving Dudley a pig tail. >Slamming Karkaroff against a tree. Falling completely to pieces >when the chips are down. Hagrid overreacts, too. Ah, now here we're getting to the heart of the problem. Do Sirius and Hagrid " overact"? I'd say no. And the reason I'd say no would have to do with the definition I'd give to the word "overacting *. My dictionary cites "to overact" as "to act with exaggeration, to overdo the performance of". For me therefore overacting would have to do with fake feeling, with lack of correspondence between what is shown and what is felt. And Sirius and Hagrid's behaviour does not IMO fulfil this definition at all. Hagrid exhibits great emotion because he feels great emotion. This is also the point in which he differs with both the Goodies (who suppress what they feel) and the Baddies (who show more that what they feel). There is absolute honesty in Hagrid's shows of feeling and "honesty" is one word I cannot compromise with "overacting". Hagrid "overreacts" on occasion, but does not "overact". And I never said anything about overreacting you know ;^) Sirius OTOH according to my definition of "overacting" fits right into the Good Guy mould. I'd say that in the Shrieking Shack for all his clawing and BELLOWING he is holding back. What you've got to keep in mind here is that it's a heated scene all round really. Everybody's emotions are rising high. And in view of this context I wouldn't say Sirius "overacts". Compared to the volume of emotions that must be soaring through him during the whole of that scene (seeing his old friends, so near revenge, seeing Harry, possibility of clearing his name etc) his reactions are (in every case besides that of his hatred for Pettigrew where they are nothing more or less than what would be expected) rather understated. >the ones who seem to overreact and overact are often the villians. >Pettigrew and his sobbing, trembling, begging, crying. Yeah, and not only does he make a spectacle of himself but he doesn't even * mean* it too. He's just using this show of excessive emotion to * touch* his attackers. The way his eyes keep on flitting to the closed door and boarded windows. All Pettigrew's doing is trying to find a way out of there. >Voldemort and "Leave him to me!" He did have to make a whole show and dance of his rebirth and brilliantly evil capture of Harry didn't he? Give Harry his wand back, have a duel. . . much simpler to kill him off while he's still helplessly tied to the gravestone really. But, that's evil overlords for you. But yes, you are right though I'd never though of this before. It is always the Bad Guys who overact. I think this is probably because they're supposed to be presented as hypocrites. There was I recall a relevant thread a few weeks ago. The idea was I believe (sorry, can't seem to remember who suggested this) that Voldemort and his supporters are hiding from their real selves, whereas what the members of the Light Side must strive for is to realise Who They Really Are. A Socratic "gnothi safton" kind of theory. I don't know how strongly this will figure in the plot of the All?Shattering End at book 7, but as far as characterisation goes I think it's a valid interpretation. I also think that JKR subscribes to the idea that "people who show less, feel more". She even uses it I think as a writing technique to avoid emotionally overloading her books. Take the Harry and Ron reconciliation scene. Nothing said, everything obvious. And of course my favourite: "But he never finished his question, because what he saw made his voice die in his throat. Lupin was lowering his wand. Next moment, he had walked to Black's side, seized his hand, pulled him to his feet so that Crookshanks fell to the floor, and embraced Black like a brother." That's it. That's perfect for me. I mean, just think what they must be feeling! Lupin realising at last after 13 lonely years that his friend was after all innocent! Sirius receiving for the first time in so long the reassurance that someone cares! And think of all the repulsive, long monologues full of elaborate, floral, flowing speeches that could be devised on this emotional background: "Oh, Sirius, my long?lost friend, how could I ever have doubted you, the endless years, not a friendly smile from anywhere, the memory of our childhood days and the belief of your guilt weighing down on me like a heart of lead, blah, blah, blah". Yuck. None of that mush thank you. Neither one even speaks a word. "embraced", "like a brother". Yeah, that totally does it for me. This expressional austerity is actually one thing I like most about the books. Incidentally it is also one of the factors that make the books IMO so overwhelmingly British, something I love. >Do JKR's characters ever >overreact, and if so, is there any discernable pattern to which >characters tend to go over the top? Well, nobody ever seems to have any problems expressing anger. This of course possibly ties in with the Warrior Ethos thread from a few months ago. But my point is?though linked-- another one. Wizards, the way I understand them, feel deeply, but say little. They're more, err, people of action. As for Neville from whom all this begun, again we've got same thing. He suffers deeply, but gives no indication of it. I'd really hate to think that the clutching of desks and dropping of food means that Neville's actually beginning to cave in after all those years of patient, lonely struggle. And again, people going to pieces just because of an ugly sound that actually has nothing to do with any part of their past (for their past would only account for screaming sounds, not wailing ones) * is* too much over?the?top IMO. Charis Julia, who only loses it about important things like not finding her favourite pencil or something. From catlady at wicca.net Sat Jun 1 10:11:05 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 10:11:05 -0000 Subject: Bloody/Peeves - cats - Arthur - Potter Inheritance - Uniforms Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39272 Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > And why is Peeves so afraid of the Bloody Baron? I keep wondering if maybe the Bloody Baron is the only ghost who can do magic ... maybe only magic can harm Peeves (viz Lupin's magic put the chewing gum up Peeves's nose) and only ghosts can pursue Peeves through walls and so on. Why would the Bloody Baron be the only ghost who can do magic? If the other ghosts had been Muggles in life... but the Far Friar said Hufflepuff was his old House... Alora wrote: > Is it just me, or is something "up" with all the cats in the books? It's not just you. I used Mike the Goat's Search page http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/ and found the JKR interview: Q: Is there something more to the cats appearing in the books than first meets the eye? (i.e. Mrs. Figg's cats, Crookshanks, Prof. McGonagall as a cat, etc.) JKR: Ooooo, another good question. Let's see what I can tell you without giving anything away....erm....no, can't do it, sorry. http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm (by the way, this is the same interview in which someone asks if Voldemort is Harry's relative and JKR says that would be *so* Star Wars). ELFUN Debbie wrote: > It's not even clear when Arthur tells Hermione he agrees with her > what his actual position is on elf rights, because the context > was Winky's mistreatment. Does he support freedom for house-elves, > or does he merely mean that they should be treated with dignity and > respect and not abused? Or that he is merely verbally agreeing with Hermione on purpose to get her to shut up? I do believe that Arthur is a really nice guy, but I don't think he's above using his niceness to manipulate people. MidgieCat meowed: > Also, I believe Harry was told (possibly by Hagrid,, Dumbledore, or > one of the marauders) that James didn't have to work at a job after > Hogwarts, that he had inherited a great deal of money. I can't > remember if that was in a book, or did I read that in a fanfic. Harry saw the money in his Gringotts vault when Hagrid took him shopping, but JKR said in any interview that James had inherited it, and his Invisibility Cloak as well. Mike the Goat's search page again: http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/October_2000_Live_Chat_Americ a_Online.htm Q: What did James and Lily Potter do when they were alive? JKR: Well, I can't go into too much detail, because you're going to find out in future books. But James inherited plenty of money, so he didn't need a well-paid profession. You'll find out more about both Harry's parents later. Q: Where did James get his Invisibility Cloak? KJR: That was inherited from his own father -- a family heirloom! By the way, this is the same interview that says: Q: Does the animal one turns into as an Animagi reflect your personality? JKR: Very well deduced, Narri! I personally would like to think that I would transform into an otter, which is my favorite animal. Imagine how horrible it would be if I turned out to be a cockroach! (When I looked directly for that quote, I found a different interview in which she said 'slug' instead of 'cockroach', co-incidentally the interview at the top of this post.) Kate Tanski wrote: > Visually the Quidditch uniforms (and Annie Liebowitz' pics from > Vanity Fair) are striking similar to the 'old' Rugby styled photos > -- all leather padding and striped sweaters. > I remember being startled by the official Hogwarts uniforms when I > saw the first tralier and thinking "But those are just like British > School Uniforms! Not real Wizards' Robes!" > It does make me wonder, though. About the use in the film of Muggle > clothing but the apparent rarity of this as implied by GoF and the > infamous clothing scenes . . . How are these to be reconsiled? The costumes in the movie were Just Plain Wrong. I don''t know how to find the pre-release movie publicity, but I read an article about how the costume designer decided to put the students into real-type English Boarding School Uniforms (made by a real English Boarding School Uniform tailor) because the book description of the students in plain black robes would look on the movie screen like one huge ocean of black with a few faces scattered about. In the Photo Album section of the HPfGU Yahoogroup Website, there is an album named Harry Potter and Me, which is screen captures of the TV special of that name, and it includes some of JKR's own drawings of the characters. The picture titled 'weasleys' shows Percy in his school uniform, so we can see what the school uniform looks like (there is a better picture of it on one of the foreign book covers of Book 1 but I forgot which one!), and the other three boys are in Muggle clothing. That costume designer also invented the Quidditch uniforms used in the movie, copying them from Muggle sports uniforms. The only picture of a real Quidditch uniform that I know of is JKR's crude drawing of the "Starfish and Stick" manuver in QUIDDITCH THROUGH THE AGES, but I can cite that none of the books mention anything about leather or padding or protectors when speaking of the Quidditch robes. Referring to the BOOKS, there seems to be a generational divide about wearing Muggle clothing. GoF Chapter Four: the Weasleys are coming to pick Harry up and Uncle Vernon snarls: "I hope you told them to dress properly" and so on. Next paragraph: "Harry felt a slight sense of foreboding. He had rarely seen Mr or Mrs Weasley wearing anything that the Dursleys would call 'normal'. Their children might don Muggle clothing during the holidays, but Mr and Mrs Weasley usually wore long robes in varying states of shabbiness." (Hmm, I thought that had said 'never seen Mr or Mrs Weasley wearing' Muggle clothing and wondered about people staring at the them at King's Cross Station, but now I see that they did wear Muggle clothes for that purpose. That would explain why Arthur's QWC costume was adequate (beginning of Chapter Six): "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." Unlike Old Archie!) The quote from Chapter Four, above, says that the Weasley kids wore Muggle clothing during the holidays, but they (and apparently most of the kids) wear a certain amount of Muggle clothing while at Hogwarts. Someone has already mentioned Harry wearing a t-shirt under his Quidditch robes. Many of the kids wear trainers (sneakers, tennies) with their black uniform robes. And wear pajamas to bed, while the only evidence of grown-ups' sleepwear is that appearance of Snape in a nightshirt. I feel that the twentieth century must have been a tumultous time for the wizard folk, during which there were two major changes of costume. Wizard folk born, say, before World War I, wear only wizarding robes and cloaks (in layers for warmth), and no underwear (per old Archie). And weird fancy purple high-heeled boots (book 1 chapter 1 description of Dumbledore). Wizard folk born after the first fall of Voldemort wear a lot of jeans and t-shirt and jumpers (sweaters) and trainers (sneakers), altho' I am not certain that the wizard-born ones KNOW that those are Muggle clothing. I am sure they wear Muggle underwear. I've already mentioned the pajamas. With less canon evidence, I believe that the generation in-between (from Arthur and Molly to Sirius and Remus) wears an intermediate style: mostly wizard robes, but occasional Muggle clothing, and some NEW wizarding fashions with trousers/britches/pantalons. A more practical kind of low-heeled and undecorated boot. And, totally without canon basis, I believe they wore non-Muggle underwear: knee-length knickers tied at waist and knee for drawers, and shirts with gathered neckline (called 'peasant blouses' as a Muggle style) for chemises (undershirts), and possibly corsets (stays) for the witches: are spells enough for bosom support? My guess as to how such a style of underwear could have suddenly become the fashion for a whole generation (or two) is that a famous witch actress was in a play in Diagon Alley's best theater, a play with a boudoir scene, and she couldn't very well be *naked* on stage, so the play's costume designed invented a fetching outfit for her that looks much more immodest than it really was, and the fashion was copied from that costume. From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat Jun 1 09:54:23 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 09:54:23 -0000 Subject: Snape is an HONEST nasty person (was Lupin Is Not An Airhead! (WAS Remus: Once more with feeling, ) In-Reply-To: <00d001c2091b$e2c7b120$5a7d63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39273 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda Geist" wrote: > Pip!squeak, responding to Cindy (I think), quipped > > > > Now, is there any good reason to believe Snape here? > > > > Just here? Is there ever any good reason to believe Snape at any > > point in the entire series to date? [grin] ( Except possibly when > > he thinks Harry isn't watching him). > Amanda *growls* > Point of fact. Snape is not a liar. Snape is an obstructionist, and > Snape firmly believes in his own interpretations of events. We may > disagree with said personal interpretations, but they *are* > honestly-held different interpretations. Snape has his faults, but > lying is not one of them. Hmmm.... I present to you J.K. Rowlings helpful definition of 'spy', which we know Snape was and possibly still is, given in the Sphinx's riddle in GoF (UK hardback p. 546). First think of the person who lives in disguise, Who deals in secrets and tells naught but lies. Interesting when applied to Snape, huh? It's that I'm thinking of when I joke that as of the end of GoF we can't believe Snape at any time Harry may be watching him - unless there's other evidence to suggest he's telling the truth in his very own style (like with James and That Incident). Not a new idea, I know. We don't know yet his real role in the Senior Trio, and we don't know yet whether it is essential to his cover that Harry genuinely believes Snape hates him. Certainly it might make it possible for him to survive going back to Voldemort; if there's one motive Voldemort truly understands it's deep hatred. >I'm sitting here trying to think of one >instance where he has lied, and I'm pulling a blank (except >possibly about believing the kids were Confunded, which I don't > think he did). Oh, now if Snape *is* under cover, the Confunded episode is completely brilliant. I mean, he can safely scream about expulsion all he likes with Dumbledore and McGonagall - they know what he's doing. But Fudge? Fudge really does have the power to insist Harry be expelled; or even taken to Azkaban 'for everyone's safety'. But Fudge also knows that doing this to the famous Harry Potter is not going to be popular. So what does Snape do? He FIRST plants in Fudge's head a perfect 'get out' clause - the kids weren't responsible. They were Confunded. (And yes, he's lying. He's doing a Slytherin 'bad means are worth it for good enough ends') Then he tentatively walks a very difficult tightrope between keeping in character in case Harry has woken up, and *not* convincing Fudge to expel anyone. Look how many pauses are written for Snape's lines here. Oh, and why does Dumbledore look as if he's 'quite enjoying himself' (PoA, UK hardback, p. 306) when Snape pulls his "Those darn kids" hysterics at the end of PoA? A valued colleague is having a nervous breakdown and you're having *fun*? Or has Dumbledore had time to pull Snape to one side and say something along the lines of 'Look, you know I trust you, just do me a favour and trust me on Black. Now go in there and convince everyone that you hate Potter's guts.' Is he enjoying the finest acting performance of Snape's career? Pip (who thinks that Snape is just as good an actor as Alan Rickman. And when Rickman gets to these particular scenes, Snape is going to chew the scenery with *style*) From chetah27 at hotmail.com Sat Jun 1 07:20:33 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 07:20:33 -0000 Subject: Remus, Remus, Remus... In-Reply-To: <019201c20910$0f92c980$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39274 Pip said: <"I see Remus as someone who is in deep denial about how dangerous he really is as a werewolf. That's why he allows himself to play around with the Maurauders whilst a werewolf, that's why he accepts a job in a school full of children who don't know how to defend themselves against a werewolf, that's why he forgets to take his potion."< Jferer replied with: Remember that Snape, who has seen Remus in his werewolf state, is > terrified of him. This is the same Snape who bounces into rooms > holding mountain trolls, threatens Dark Wizards, risks death and > torture by spying on Voldemort and is prepared to face off a wizard > he believes has killed twelve people with a single curse. And he's > *scared* of Remus. Prefect Marcus: I don't see Snape fearing Remus. "Hating" is the term I would use. They are not the same thing. Yes. I can believe that Snape was rather afraid of Remus when he met him in the Shrieking Shake that one time when he was younger, and I think the hate comes directly from that(atleast, that's the only source we know of for the hate- perhaps Remus has done things to further irritate Snape- which is really not so hard once you're anywhere near his bad side =). Snape always seems to hate it if he shows/does something that he thinks of as a "weakness"--for example, his being in debt to James. He hated James for making him in debt to him. So I think it rather in character of Snape to hate Remus for frightening and attempting to murder him. And I believe that's all I got to say about that....for now. =P ~Aldrea From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sat Jun 1 12:41:16 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 12:41:16 -0000 Subject: Snape is an HONEST nasty person (was Lupin Is Not An Airhead! (WAS Remus: Once more with feeling, ) In-Reply-To: <00d001c2091b$e2c7b120$5a7d63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39275 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda Geist" wrote: > *growls* > Point of fact. Snape is not a liar. Snape is an obstructionist, and Snape > firmly believes in his own interpretations of events. We may disagree with > said personal interpretations, but they *are* honestly-held different > interpretations. Snape has his faults, but lying is not one of them. I'm > sitting here trying to think of one instance where he has lied, and I'm > pulling a blank (except possibly about believing the kids were Confunded, > which I don't think he did). > I think that's very true, and I also think it's deliberate on JKR's part. (Yeah, there's that tricky authorial intent issue again.) Take the whole Shrieking Shack sequence in PoA and its aftermath. This is Snape at his absolute worst, the closest he comes in the books to being an out-and-out villain. Yet JKR still arranges the whole lengthy and extremely complex series of events in such a way that Snape misses out on all the events that actually demonstrate Wormtail's guilt and Sirius' innocence. He's either absent or unconscious for all the really important parts. And I think it's because if he *had* seen Wormtail running around alive, he would not have lied about it to Fudge, no matter how much he wants Sirius to be Dementor food. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From meboriqua at aol.com Sat Jun 1 13:07:36 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 13:07:36 -0000 Subject: Snape is an HONEST nasty person (was Lupin Is Not An Airhead! (WAS Remus: Once more with feeling, ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39276 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda Geist" wrote: I'm sitting here trying to think of one instance where he has lied, and I'm pulling a blank (except possibly about believing the kids were Confunded, which I don't think he did).> and bluesqueak responded: > Oh, now if Snape *is* under cover, the Confunded episode is completely brilliant. I mean, he can safely scream about expulsion all he likes with Dumbledore and McGonagall - they know what he's doing. But Fudge? Fudge really does have the power to insist Harry be > expelled; or even taken to Azkaban 'for everyone's safety'. But Fudge also knows that doing this to the famous Harry Potter is not going to be popular. So what does Snape do? He FIRST plants in Fudge's head a perfect 'get out' clause - the kids weren't responsible. They were Confunded. (And yes, he's lying. He's doing a Slytherin 'bad means are worth it for good enough ends') Then he tentatively walks a very difficult tightrope between keeping in character in case Harry has woken up, and *not* convincing Fudge to expel anyone. Look how many pauses are written for Snape's lines here.> Okay, I'm a bit confused here by what you said. If Snape is lying about the Trio being under a Confundus Spell, then really, he is helping them by excusing their behavior (hmmm, wonder why he didn't say they were under the Imperius?). Is that what you are saying, bluesqueak? Because if you are, then we are in agreement. I most definitely agree with Amanda here (we 'geists usually stick together, except when it comes to House Elves :-P). I would find it hard to believe and even harder to accept if Snape turns out to be a bad guy after all. JKR has made him deliberately vague and confusing, and quite unlikeable, which is exactly what makes him such a brilliant character. He is very real. Don't we all know people who aren't very nice but aren't bad, either? I work with someone very much like that. I think she is the nastiest woman I've ever met (she is certainly as nasty to me as Snape is to Harry), yet she is very involved with the school and the students and is generally liked by them. *I* just can't stand her. Snape, too, is a nasty man. However, he is a very capable teacher and we have seen more times to refute that he is there to help Harry. I am still impressed that he risked so much at the end of GoF to show Fudge the Dark Mark on his own arm. That takes chutzpah! One last comment here: Fudge. We all know Fudge would never support expelling Harry, but I don't think he's the one who has the power to do so anyway. Dumbledore is the the Headmaster of Hogwarts and Dumbledore alone is the one who has the power to keep or expell Harry or any other student. Fudge may try to put pressure on Dumbledore from time to time, but Fudge has nothing on Dumbledore, IMO. --jenny from ravenclaw ******** From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jun 1 13:42:02 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 13:42:02 -0000 Subject: Snape Afraid of Lupin, was Oh, but he IS nice Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39277 Alina wrote: >>>I don't remember seeing evidence of Snape being scared of Lupin. He probably was terrified when he was younger, but it seems to have all gone into hate over the years. <<< Snape backs out of the room when he delivers the potion. When Snape moves in on the Shack, he ties up Lupin, never Sirius, though Sirus is supposed to be a wizard who killed thirteen people with a single curse and may be carrying the knife he used to attack the Fat Lady and Ron's curtains. Obviously Snape considers Lupin the greater threat. Pippin From pollux46 at hotmail.com Sat Jun 1 13:52:08 2002 From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 13:52:08 -0000 Subject: Ron and Giving Comfort (WAS: Hurt Comfort and Reader Crushes) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39278 Pippin: <<<>>> Laura said: <<<>>> Well, I do admit Ron has been known to don RIOTGEAR from time to time . But, I must point out (correct me if I'm putting words into your mouth here Pippin) that Pippin did not suggest that Ron himself is mature, but that he appeals to more mature * tastes*. A very different point. Penny, once she got over her snorting fit, said: <<<<<<>>>>> <<<<<>>>>>> Well, Hermione definitely is more mature than Ron about admitting to feelings. Though I'm not half as sure she knows how to handle them any better. But again, I would make a distinction, this time between "giving comfort" and actually being comforting. Hermione is open to receiving other peoples emotional signals and interpreting them too when she wants to. Picking up on Neville's distress in Moody's class and figuring out the real reasons behind Ron lying accusation against Harry are prime examples of this. However she's not all that good when it comes to doing something about it afterwards. Frankly she can be a bit too forward and bossy: "Ron," said Hermione, in an I?don't?think?you're?being?very?sensitive sort of voice, "Harry doesn't want to play Quidditch right now. . . he's worried, and he's tired. . . we all need to go to bed. . ." This scene illustrates my point very well. Here Hermione is of course the one who's being the most the most sensitive and the one "giving comfort". But it's Ron suggestion that Harry actually finds the most comfort in. I think the difference is that Ron's a lot more laid?back than Hermione. He puts people at ease naturally-- as opposed to Hermione puts them on edge. He does not consciously go about making people feel better, but the effect is achieved nevertheless. And his "comfort giving" is attempted through actions rather than words.-- He is invariably ill at ease when it comes to voicing his concern for others. Hence he hardly features at all in the "Making Hagrid Feel Better" scene in GoF?it's Hermione who makes herself heard here ;^). But through his actions Ron is very good at making people feel cared for. He doesn't need to tell them. I think that the most comforting thing about Ron is that he takes people as they come. He accepts them for what they are, no questions asked. GoF, "Beaubatons and Durmstrang": "That was a lie, * Harry,*" said Hermione sharply over breakfst, when he told her and Ron what he had done "You * didn't* imagine you scar hurting and you know it." "So what?" said Harry. "He's not going back to Azkaban because of me." "Drop it," said Ron sharply to Hermione. Hermione's right here of course. Harry * did* lie. But that's not what he wants to hear. Ron isn't handing out moral lectures. He's simply accepting Harry's decision and the reasons behind it. Should he have done so? Well, that's another story. . . But his attitude is the most * comforting* if not anything else. And, you know, I also think it's telling that Ron is the only person that Harry hasn't lied to to date. He just doesn't put that kind of pressure on people. <<<<>>> <<<<>>>> Wow! Hang on! Harry in touch with his feelings? You sure? Well, I'm blown, I truly am. I * never* read Harry as sensitive. Never. As for comforting, capable of responding to emotions. . . well, I'm going to need some Can(n)on here, I really am. As far as I can see for the most part Harry tends to be rather more than less unaware of others' feelings. His insensitivity in fact often reaches the point of downright rudeness. He's definitely abrupt more than once to Ginny and both of the Creeveys not to mention Dobby and Moaning Myrtle. I know he doesn't like being hero?worshipped but I'm sure it does nothing for Colin's confidence to be cold?shouldered and brushed off all the time. I love Harry, but he's famous and he's just got to learn to deal with that. And you know that little saying of Sirius's about men and their inferiors? Charis Julia, who identifies more strongly with Hermione, but can't help loving Ron best. From ladjables at yahoo.com Sat Jun 1 14:49:17 2002 From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 07:49:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Comparing "house-elfment" to slavery (Part 2) Message-ID: <20020601144917.51353.qmail@web20402.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39279 In this post I'd like to address freedom and oppression, and how slavery and house-elfment may share a similar understanding of both. I can't promise I won't meander though. Let's say oppression is a process that leads to menticide. First you are physically restricted, then you are pressured to accept these restrictions, and finally you are no longer aware of being controlled. Reinforced over generations, there would be no awareness of freedom. Suddenly you are told you are free. Doesn't it make sense to say you don't want it, since you don't know what it is? Psychological oppression makes the house-elves' resistance to change unsurprising, as opposed to being concrete evidence that elves need to serve and should be left alone. I happen to prefer this version of the house-elf story, because it means that the house-elf issue may never be fully resolved. Ending oppression is difficult when no such concept exists in the minds of the totally subservient, and they may actually defend their lifestyle. How do you help someone who does not believe he is oppressed? Many listers have stated that the problem with comparing house-elfment to slavery is that seeing freedom as disgraceful is unknown in human society. This is untrue. The many slave rebellions thwarted by domestic slaves who, comfortable in their positions, frequently warned their masters of such plots to overthrow the plantocracy, attest to the fact that freedom, once seen as eviction, expulsion and exile, is distasteful to some. Dave also gives a very nice example of the women who opposed the Suffragettes. Henceforth, I am referrring to these women as house-wives. Why does collusion with the oppressor plague and undermine many a struggle? The problem is the same for the house slave, the house-elf, and the house-wife: freedom is perceived as negative, because it is unfamiliar. It requires change. The house-slave, unlike the field-slave, or the newly arrived slave from Africa, had no remembrance of what it was like to be free, born and raised to serve only in the estate house. Therefore, loyalty to the master and his family superceded loyalty to his fellow slaves. Phillip Pettit defines freedom as non-domination, as non-interference and as self-mastery. Freedom as non-domination subsumes non-interference and autonomy. Those who are subject to the arbitrary will of another are unfree, even when that other does not *actively* interfere, because the capacity to interefere on an arbitrary basis still exists, and the master remains a source of domination. Freedom requires the absence of dependency upon the will of another, and the absence of vulnerability to interference, and a slave is one who is held as property, submissive under domination and who has often lost the will to resist. I've said Winky personifies the truly oppressed because: >Winky has been freed, but until she can wrap her >mind around the concept, she may as well be working >for Barty Crouch. In other words, she is totally dependent on the Crouches for her very identity, because she had never done anything else but serve them. Look at the way Winky was dismissed by Crouch Sr. Could he have been any more menacing? He knew by giving Winky clothes he was taking away her life, so to speak. Of course Winky believes her world has fallen apart. Winky tells Hermione "Winky is a disgraced elf, but Winky is not yet getting paid...Winky is not sunk so low as that! Winky is properly ashamed of being freed." (GoF, US Edition, p.379) Dobby explains that Winky is "allowed to speak her mind now, but she won't do it."(p.380) Whether Winky despises freedom from servitude or freedom from her home, of freedom from the Crouches doesn't matter; Winky just can't accept freedom. She thinks its wrong, because she equates it with not being able to serve. I'm torn between comforting her and whacking her with my rubber spatula. Winky won't even take up for Dobby, a fellow house-elf, when he talks of how happy he is to be free from the Malfoys, who were "bad wizards". Instead, she is disparaging. As far as she is concerned, Dobby should be back at the Malfoys, being a good house-elf, practicing ultimate deference, because what is Dobby's welfare compared to wizard well-being? Is the house-elf a house-wife or a house-slave? On the other hand, I said: > Dobby is our freedom-fighter; he embodies the most > admirable traits one can develop when subjected to a > situation that is infra dig. He chooses not to > accept his position. Dobby, before Lucius Malfoy inadvertently tossed him the sock, resisted the bonds of his servitude in going to Harry and helping him. He even implicates his master in the whole diary fiasco, before he was actually freed, punishing himself in the process. Dobby struggles, he mentally resists, and eventually is set free. A "good" house-elf would never do such a thing; witness Winky. Dobby has yet to overcome enslavement completely, but how his mindset changes in future books will be interesting characterwise. Freedom is not simply a change in legal status; what if it is a natural state that the house-elves were deprived of, and Dobby managed to tap into it? The house-elf's position is hereditary (as was the slave's). Winky talks of her ancestors serving the Crouch family for generations (GoF, 381). When did Winky and others ever get to choose, if at birth they're destined to serve? Serving is the only life they've ever known. How would they know what they're truly capable of, if stepping outside the iron confines of house-elfment is expressly forbidden? Of course they like it, they haven't been exposed to anything else. Yet the elves have very powerful magic. Was there ever a time when the elves were allowed to control their own magic? It has been suggested that house-elves need to be linked to a certain place and become attached to their masters. Suppose house-elves were actually a burden to these masters as incompetent servants, do you think anyone would be even remotely interested in preserving current elf status? I doubt they would be as "compassionate". Those bothersome servants would be released in a jiffy, with nary a thought as to their well-being. IMO, the present relationship between house-elf and master most definitely benefits the master. Whether it benefits house-elves remains to be seen. It is possible that whatever magical contract may be binding the house-elves is outdated and needs revising. I do wonder however, what house-elfment says about the wizards, natural servitude or not. That house-elves are another species seems to be a major stumbling block in considering their situation to be similar to slavery as well. While there's no reason to assume they're like humans, there is also no reason to assume the opposite. Because they are sentient, they have a lot in common with wizards. They think, speak, and have feelings. They are not invulnerable to pain, they feel loss and grief, shame and joy, like humans do. I think they make such good servants because they are able to understand wizard mentality very well, and it would take a comparitively sophisticated mind to keep secrets for the families. And their magic makes them powerful beings. They are servants not because they are simple, but because they are very capable. And if they're so capable, why are they servants? Because they are naturally caring beings? Because they were evil and needed to be controlled? Because they are being taken advantage of? What if house-elves prefer the present arrangement because they don't know it can be improved? I don't believe the elfs are in a position to make an informed choice. This is why I disagree with Hermione's approach to the house-elves, even though she means well. She cannot force the elves to change when they view freedom as taboo, and not theirs by right. Hermione's stratagem is lacking because wizards bear responsibility also for the treatment of the house-elves. Amanda said: >What if you ultimately end up with a batch of elves, >whose nature inclines them to servitude, and >brainwash them to believe they like freedom? That is >as morally wrong as the reverse, brainwashing them >out of free will to like their servitude. When do you >start letting another being make its own decisions, >and when do you insist on interfering for its own >good? I think it is this very conundrum that JKR is >seeking to illustrate, more than anything else. But how can the elves make their own decisions if they've been bred to be submissive? You omitted that part of the argument. Now, I'm goggling at your "brainwashing into freedom" argument. Fetching as it is, what basis does this have in reality? Is this exempified anywhere in our society? How is someone forced into freedom, unless they were brainwashed in the first place to reject it? I don't see how freedom can ever be morally wrong, and can't fathom why anyone waste the time trying to prove this, especially in HP. HP may be fantasy, but as Lloyd Alexander put it, fantasy is not so much an escape from reality as it is an explanation of reality. Even if canon states that house-elves are by nature servants, I still don't see why this should rule out change. Whatever happened to "its our choices and not our abilities that define us", or does that just apply to humans and not house-elves?! Or say the original house-elves were evil, does this mean their offspring should be punished for the sins of their ancestors? I find it very difficult to believe that Lupin's lycanthropy could inspire comparisons to homophobia and AIDS, that Hagrid's being part-giant is an opportunity to denounce racial prejudice, but when we get to the house-elves, JKR *just* stops short of social commentary. If the house-elves are oppressed, then JKR has initiated a compelling and daring discussion on the nature of oppression-who oppresses whom? And how do you convince exploiters and exploited alike they're in need of an attitude lift, without being patronizing and ultimately ineffectual? We have Hagrid, the twins, Percy, Ron et al, who have grown up in the WW, and are decent, kindhearted people, but see the preternaturally cheerful, servile house-elfs as nothing out of the ordinary. Could JKR be saying even the most well-meaning people remain unaware of injustice around them when they see through the veil of convention? In other words, if a structure of oppression provides the framework for wizarding society (as slavery did for the plantation economy) because it is reflective of wizard consciousness, how would they know to object? Are they not like the house-elves in this sense, mindlessly maintaining the status quo? Then we have Hermione, a muggle-born witch and outsider, who IS aware and compassionate, but whose approach is questionable and may be ultimately harmful. In the middle we have the house-elves, who are born into the position and will not choose what is alien to them. So, to help or not to help? The house-elf issue demonstrates that the struggle for freedom is just that, a struggle, because it is often difficult to fight oppression. Otherwise, it seems to me the story isn't, as Cindy would say, Bangy enough. I haven't tried to formulate a theory that house-elfment *is* slavery, because there is no need. Perhaps JKR drew elements from slavery, indentureship, immigrant issues, sexism, social reform, folklore and this synthesis produced house-elves. Who's to say? I'm not sure house-elves being another species even matters. I think elfundeb stated that there's no reason one's reading of the house-elves should be limited to this one interpretation. JKR did not have to make it glaringly obvious by having, say, black wizards serve white wizards to make her point. Perhaps she wanted to be more subtle, to see if we would still be able to recognize such a sly incarnation of oppression. I know of many people who have read the many species in the WW as analogous to the different races in our own world. If Harry Potter is indeed about good and evil, then oppression and prejudice easily fall under the "bad" list. Purity of blood is important to Lucius Malfoy, Voldemort and Salazar Slytherin. Seeing social reform as limited does not mean oppression should be tolerated, or that it does not exist. Perhaps reform is limited because it fails to recognize and address the covert nature of subjugation, especially if oppression is deeply ingrained in society, and its eradication threatens the stability of that very society. That, IMHO, is a much more fascinating and pertinent story. I keep thinking of Dumbledore's distinction between what is right and what is easy. Perhaps accepting the limits of social reform would not be easy, and the right thing to do, but what about challenging the house-elf system and initiating substantial, structural change? The abolition of slavery ruined the plantocracy, and destroyed the plantation economy. Was the social upheaval worth it? The planters would think not, and that would be honest, and fair. I could see why no-one in the WW would want to change, especially as house-elf labour has existed for centuries. But change cannot be prevented. I have a feeling Voldemort will be a catalyst of sorts for social change, so it'll be interesting to see if the house-elves cling fatally to tradition or use the opportunity to show their mettle. Ama, all speculated out. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From ronale7 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 1 13:04:20 2002 From: ronale7 at yahoo.com (Ronale Stevens) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 06:04:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Mirror of Erised, Harry's Family In-Reply-To: <3c.1f0ae1c3.2a296266@aol.com> Message-ID: <20020601130420.76044.qmail@web20809.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39280 --- midgiecat at aol.com wrote: > > Doesn't anyone remember what Harry saw in the Mirror > of Erised?? I don't > have the book in front of me so I can't quote, but > it said something like ... > not only were Lily and James Potter standing there, > but rows and rows of > people who looked very much like Harry, some tall > and some short, but many > with that same "hard to manage" hair. Generations > and generations of > Potters. > > I don't recall seeing a Riddle among them. > We may not be looking at the same edition, but in mine the passages you referred to are in SS chapter 12. The first time Harry looks into the mirror, he sees his parents, other people with green eyes, or noses like his, or knobbly knees. At no time does the passage tell us which side of his family they come from. (Though I presume the green-eyed people are from his mother's side.) The time he looks into it while Dumbledore is present, he sees his parents and one of his grandfathers. Clearly he's not seing the other grandfather. Why shouldn't this be Riddle? And remember, the mirror is showing him only what he wants to see. He certainly wouldn't want to see Voldemort. Other arguments against Riddle being Harry's paternal grandfather can also be explained away. Dumbledore may not know of the kinship. He may thus believe Voldemort is the last living descendant of Slytherin even though it's not true. He wouldn't be lying, just mistaken. And the Rowling interview doesn't deny the relationship--she just laughingly compares it to Star Wars. So? Laughter is not a denial. And the tale of a child killing his father or grandfather has been around a lot longer than 30 years. Consider Oedipus. It's a good story, and I'm hoping Rowling is using it. I'll be interested to see how she handles it. Okay, I'm probably hung up on the fatal child theory, but I've seen no real evidence against it. Till I do, I hanging on to it. Ronale7 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From alina at distantplace.net Sat Jun 1 15:03:03 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 11:03:03 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Mirror of Erised, Harry's Family References: <20020601130420.76044.qmail@web20809.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001401c2097d$6e593fe0$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39281 ----- Original Message ----- From: Ronale Stevens And remember, the mirror is showing him only what he wants to see. He certainly wouldn't want to see Voldemort. Reply: Quite right, remember Dumbledore said that the mirror gives us neither knowledge, nor truth. I think this was his way of telling Harry that what he sees in the mirror may be the faces of some of his ancestors, but he would never learn who they really were and there may be others that he doesn't know about. Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ "I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.368 / Virus Database: 204 - Release Date: 29/05/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From alina at distantplace.net Sat Jun 1 15:05:31 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 11:05:31 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape Afraid of Lupin, was Oh, but he IS nice References: Message-ID: <001a01c2097d$c68bae00$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39282 Pippin wrote: Alina wrote: >>>I don't remember seeing evidence of Snape being scared of Lupin. He probably was terrified when he was younger, but it seems to have all gone into hate over the years. <<< Snape backs out of the room when he delivers the potion. When Snape moves in on the Shack, he ties up Lupin, never Sirius, though Sirus is supposed to be a wizard who killed thirteen people with a single curse and may be carrying the knife he used to attack the Fat Lady and Ron's curtains. Obviously Snape considers Lupin the greater threat. Reply: I don't really think he backed out of the room because he was afraid, more like he wanted to see what Lupin and Harry were talking about. Or perhaps he was even worried about Harry. As for considering him the greater threat, wouldn't you? Lupin is a werewolf and Sirius Black is supposed to be mostly drained by the Dementors. Even if Snape still has fear left from his childhood, I think it's more or less a common-sensical fear. Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ "I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.368 / Virus Database: 204 - Release Date: 29/05/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at aol.com Sat Jun 1 15:25:19 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 11:25:19 EDT Subject: Hurt Comfort and Ron Message-ID: <1a0.317d4db.2a2a415f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39283 Elkins, on hurt-comfort: > A few more thoughts on "hurt-comfort," the dynamic whereby > female readers tend to become erotically interested in male > characters who suffer, provided that this suffering is depicted > Let me confess right up front that for a long while I've been wanting to have both Lupin and Snape over for drinks . . . just not at the same time. Make of that what you will. Elkins again, on why Ron doesn't qualify for hurt comfort: > Hmmm. You know what's wrong with poor ickle Ronniekins? The author > has it in for him, that's what! She just doesn't want Ron to see any > action at all. She's always knocking his feet out from under him just > when he rightfully *should* be racking up the crush points. > > Other characters in states of shock get to be "pale." Ron, even > while struggling manfully and heroically with his broken leg, gets > hit with "green." He defends Hermione -- and then winds up belching > up slugs. He confronts his worst phobia -- and then vomits. > > I mean, it's just terrible. Just when the reader is all primed for > developing a crush on Ron, the author smacks her in the face with > something profoundly unerotic. I actually think it's much broader than that. She wants us to think poorly of him. In PS/SS, JKR gave us a little glimpse of what Ron can do -- mastering a spell under stress or executing a masterful chess game and sacrifice, setting up some expectations -- and then in the succeeding books she dashes them spectacularly. For example, it was Ron's initiative that sent him and Harry to see Lockhart and accompany him to the Chamber. But Lockhart's blast with the wand succeeded in keeping Ron away from the action and Harry gets all the glory. Then, in PoA, she breaks his leg and turns his pet into a villain who knocks him out so he can't participate in the rescue of Sirius and Buckbeak. And in GoF, she tries her very best to make him into a very unappealing character. She makes him jealous. He fights with his best friend. He turns into an apparent bigot. He says stupid things. It's like he lost the ability to think. And even when he is thinking, sometimes JKR doesn't really allow him full credit. Here's an example I noted last week when I started to compile a LOON list for Pippin of additional instances where Ron is right but for which he seldom gets credit. (I didn't finish it because sometimes I opt for sleep over posting). In CoS, ch. 16, in the infirmary, Harry pulls the scrap of paper from Hermione's hand and makes the basilisk connection, and the fact that it's been using the pipes (which Harry would logically know better because Ron has not been hearing the voice through the walls). But then, "Ron suddenly grabbed Harry's arm. 'The entrance to the Chamber of Secrets!" he said hoarsely. 'What if it's in a bathroom? What if it's in --'" whereupon Harry finishes his sentence for him. Harry was perhaps thinking along those lines. But Ron is the one who identifies the entrance to the Chamber as in a bathroom, and I can't imagine that he would have identified a bathroom other than Myrtle's if Harry had not cut him off. Unfortunately, later when Harry is telling Dumbledore about it, he says that he, Harry had guessed "that the entrance to the Chamber of Secrets might be in [Moaning Myrtle's] bathroom." The effect? The last reader is left with the idea that Harry worked everything out by himself and that Ron was just along for the ride. So even JKR doesn't let Ron get any credit. (I do note, though, that Dumbledore gave 400 points to Gryffindor for Harry and Ron, and not just to Harry.) And his sort of thing is perpetuated elsewhere. For example, in the Celluloid That Must Not Be Named (which my children bought me for Mother's Day so they could watch it), the screenwriter changed the troll scene so Ron doesn't act until Harry says, "Do something," and then he still dithers around. Now I don't think the CTMNBN is canon, but it's another factor working to crush poor Ron's reputation. Laura stated, on whether Ron can give comfort: > for example..when Hermione is attacked/hurt by various and sundry people > (Malfoy), Harry tends to be the one that goes to her and offers emotional > support, while Ron loses his temper and confronts Malfoy -- while this is a > reasonable reaction, it doesn't help Hermione very much. > In GoF, when Malfoy's attempt to curse Harry rebounded on Hermione and swelled her teeth, it was Ron who went over to Hermione, and he tried to get Snape to show some sympathy for her by getting her to show how badly she had been disfigured. Penny on the same issue: > But, giving comfort? He says things like "You don't know you'll make a fool > of yourself" when Harry is worried about taking flying lessons with the > Slytherins in PS/SS. He offers to make tea for Hagrid when Hagrid is > inconsolable. He seems worried about Harry's reaction to the dementors on > the train. He's not a complete clod when it comes to perception & warmth > toward his friends ... but I definitely can't think of instances where he > shows aptitude for giving and receiving comfort in an emotionally stable > manner at some point in the future. I have to disagree with the definition of giving comfort. Take the tea episode in Hagrid's cabin. Hagrid is sobbing and Harry and Hermione attempt to console Hagrid by analyzing the situation and coming up with ideas. But it's not working. The tea Ron offers is very comforting; until he gets the tea, he's too busy sobbing to focus on what Harry and Hermione are saying. "At last, after many more assurances of help, with a steaming mug of tea in front of him, Hagrid . . . said, "Yer right. I can't afford to go ter pieces." Offering tea is a gesture of concern every bit as much as offering advice, and quite as effective. What Hagrid needed was to be calmed down and the quote above suggests the tea was just as important as the advice. (Maybe it's just us lawyers who equate advice with comfort!) Penny continues: > Strangely enough, even with the deficiencies in his own emotional background > and even with the Growing Up Weasley working in Ron's favor, I think at > this point in the canon, Harry is head & shoulders above Ron in the > department of being in touch with his feelings and being capable of having > and responding to his own emotions as well as those of others. The books are told from Harry's POV. Thus, we know how Harry responds emotionally, and sometimes he does withdraw, or try not to deal with things that are bothering him. For example, at the beginning of GoF, he tries to ignore the pain in his scar, until the WWC events make him realize he has to talk about it. We don't get inside Ron's head, and we can't assume that he's not in touch with his feelings. On the contrary, I've always assumed that Ron spent the three weeks of his fight with Harry working through his feelings of frustration. Furthermore, often Harry deals with situations, such as the horror of Voldemort in GoF, only because others force him to. Harry "didn't want to have to examine the memories" but Dumbledore made him tell the entire story, and this was exactly the right thing to do. He gets everything he needs to help him cope with things. Lupin helps him deal with the Dementors, Dumbledore gives him no more information about his family than he can handle, etc. Penny also assumes that Ron ought to be better off than Harry emotionally because of a Growing Up Weasley advantage. I'm not certain that there is any such advantage; yes, loving parents do count for quite a bit, but it's not an insurance policy against problems. And being the sixth child, competing with a bunch of noisy or difficult siblings for attention, is not an advantage. The One Big Happy Weasley Family is, IMO, a myth. There's just too much conflict. I think, in fact, that there are a lot of clues that the Weasley family dynamic is not healthy for Ron at all. We've seen conflict between Molly and the twins, and between the twins and Percy. Ron's coping mechanism is to work very hard to keep out of all of the mischief -- he withdraws when Molly yells at the twins, works hard to make sure the twins don't treat him the way they do Percy, tries to stay out of trouble, etc. But I don't think this coping mechanism is working very well as it masks his real issue -- his need for attention and his inability to ask for it. Paradoxically, Harry, despite his orphan status and miserable life pre-Hogwarts, has by the end of GoF developed a rather formidable list of mentors and comforters. He has or has had Dumbledore's wisdom, Sirius, Lupin, Hagrid, and Molly's mothering. Even Snape is mentoring him, though in a twisted sort of way. All of these people are specifically looking out for Harry's welfare (even Snape, I would argue, though we can question his motives), and they make decisions that help Harry deal with situations in a positive way. So Harry's history turns out to be an asset. But Ron doesn't have any of that. He's just another student. I don't see anybody at Hogwarts mentoring him the way they do Harry, or even Hermione, who has McGonagall's mentorship. His brothers don't do it (not that the twins would mentor him in the right direction). They do more for Harry than they do for Ron (like giving him the Marauder's Map). If Percy tried, it was completely ineffectual. Percy deals with Ron the way that Molly deals with the twins -- such as when he catches Ron coming out of Moaning Myrtle's bathroom in CoS. ("Percy swelled in a manner that reminded Harry forcefully of Mrs. Weasley.") The oldest brothers simply aren't available. Molly's too busy with all her other charges, including Harry. (We have no idea what Arthur does, except for at the WWC where he keeps Ron from shredding the shamrocks on his hat while the veela are dancing.) Harry and Ron are, it seems to me, on opposite trajectories in terms of their support systems. Harry's gets better all the time, while Ron's family is all busy elsewhere. But the fact that the Weasleys are so supportive of Harry and that he enjoys life at the Burrow so much obscures the fact that for Ron, his family is not the asset it seems to be from Harry's POV. Debbie, who like others has a compulsion to defend Ron [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jun 1 15:48:26 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 15:48:26 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Krum Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39284 I asked: What's Hermione playing at with Viktor > anyway? Is anybody really comfortable about her being in a > relationship with a seventeen year old boy? Irene: >>>>Yes, I'm comfortable with what we have seen so far. >She really needed someone who respects her love of learning >and sees her on her own and not as a part of the trio.<<< AV: >>>>I think she's "playing at" acknowledging the first good-looking boy who's ever responded to her _as a girl_ (not really counting Neville, who I think she feels too 'maternal/teacherly' towards to ever consider romantically)straightforwardly and in a complimentary fashion (unlike Ron's dithering). It's not totally "mature" I guess but I can't say I blame her. She's probably curious to learn more about Durmstrang and Bulgaria, too. Nothingwrong with that either. They're _both_ at an age for short-lived experimental dating--cut 'em some slack.<<<< Zo?: >>>What relationship? They went on a date to the Ball. And, as Hermione is the only non-Durmstrang person Viktor seems to have any contact with, she waschosen as his "most=missed" person for the 2nd challenge. But relationship? To my recollection, there isn't any contact between Herminone and Krum afterthe Ball. It doesn't seem like she agreed to go to meet him for the summer. It just doesn't smell like a relationship to me, at least from Hermione's state of mind.<<<<< This all goes to prove my point: it could be a problem if Viktor's feelings for Hermione are as intense as they seem to be. Maybe they aren't, of course; there's always narrative twist. Still, The Second Task happens after the ball, and that's when Viktor tells her he's "never felt this way about anyone else." Experimental flings and mature attitudes are all very well, but he's of age, by the laws of his world, and she isn't. Whatever it is, it's not a relationship of equals. I'm sure Viktor is a gentleman with Hermione. But it would be kind of odd if Viktor had such intense feelings and they didn't have an erotic component, even if it's only a wistful fantasy about what she'll be like when she's as mature and sophisticated as she looked on the night of the ball. (If not, he's considerably less imaginative than a lot of our list members!) Hermione doesn't, or shouldn't, have to deal with that. She doesn't have to set any boundaries with Viktor. She can rightfully expect him to do it for her. However, learning to manage her feelings is part of what she needs to do in order to become a responsible adult, so, in a way, she's dodging the issue as much as Ron is. I'm sure at the Ball Hermione felt as if she'd sailed right past the awkward transition from girl to woman without ever going through it. But that's not the real her, not yet. She was pretending that night. Whether you think she's fourteen or fifteen, she couldn't keep up the illusion for very long. "Standing ten feet apart, they were bellowing at each other, each scarlet in the face"..."her hair was coming down now out of its elegant bun and her face was screwed up in anger." That's JKR showing us Hermione isn't quite up to her image. I feel bad for Viktor. There's a real potential for Hermione to hurt him. I don't think she's leading him on deliberately, but she's too young and inexperienced, IMO, to realize she might be doing it inadvertently. Pippin From cindysphynx at comcast.net Sat Jun 1 16:26:36 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 16:26:36 -0000 Subject: A Taste of Moody, With A Big Scoop of Krum and Karkaroff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39285 Elkins wrote (in an effort to beat back Sexy!Moody) >"Horribly mutilated" is generally considered a turn-off, I'm > afraid. Even more so than greasy hair and sallow skin and yellow > teeth. Snape's physical drawbacks aren't sufficient to put him >out of the running. Moody's are. Monstrously unjust, but there >you have it. > > Also, he's kind of old. Aw, come on. Be *fair* to Moody. Yes, he is grotesque, but in a rather adorable, needy way, don't you think? Besides, there are *advantages* to some of Moody's deformities. This is a man who could watch your back for you during a passionate embrace, after all. No? Are you sure? Well, OK, then. But there are two other men who ought to generate Hurt-Comfort feelings, but for some reason, no one ever has anything positive to say about them. The first is Victor. Victor is a Star Athlete who gets a bloody nose at the QWC, taking an iron bludger "full in the face." He doesn't so much as flinch; it's all in a day's work for Victor. Still, he manages to catch the Snitch, after diving with "flecks of blood" visible in the air. He dives from his ship into the frigid waters of the Lake. Krum gets Stunned by Fake Moody. Later, he gets Stunned again in the maze and "fell forward, and lay motionless, facedown in the grass." And, of course, Victor is young and a man of few words, the Strong Silent Type, which we all are powerless to resist. So tell me. Why is it that no one crushes on Quiddich Star Victor Krum? Why is it that the women don't hurl themselves forward to fall at Victor's duck feet, pledging to help him learn to stand up straight? Then we have Karkaroff. Karkaroff spent time in Azkaban, just like Sirius, and turned traitor to his friends, just like Snape. Karkaroff takes a beating, too. The Dark Mark burns on his arm, causes him to panic and show far more concern than Snape. Karkaroff also gets intimidated by Fake Moody, just like Snape. Then, Karkaroff is slammed into a tree by a giant, his "feet dangling in midair," Hagrid's fist at his throat, finally sliding down the tree trunk to "huddle at its roots." At the end of GoF, Karkaroff is on the run, fleeing for his very life. Poor Igor! So why don't the women folk around here fall all over each other for the chance to pluck the twigs and leaves from Karkaroff's silver hair? What is the problem? We see these things happen; we aren't merely told about them. Neither Krum nor Karkaroff is passive. Neither is physically grotesque, and neither falls apart when they are injured. True, Karkaroff seems to have some dental issues, but no worse than Snape. If anything, Karkaroff seems to be a snappy dresser, a nurturing mentor to young Victor. So. Any takers for a slice of Karkaroff or Krum? Cindy (who may have to start a support group for women who are willing to crush on some of the less obvious crush objects in the books, as there is far less competition for their affection) From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat Jun 1 15:36:25 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 15:36:25 -0000 Subject: Snape is an HONEST nasty person In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39286 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jenny_ravenclaw" wrote: > > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda Geist" wrote: > > I'm sitting here trying to think of one instance where he has lied, > and I'm pulling a blank (except possibly about believing the kids > were Confunded, which I don't think he did).> > > and bluesqueak responded: > > > Oh, now if Snape *is* under cover, the Confunded episode is > completely brilliant. I mean, he can safely scream about expulsion > all he likes with Dumbledore and McGonagall - they know what he's > doing. > But Fudge? Fudge really does have the power to insist Harry be > expelled; or even taken to Azkaban 'for everyone's safety'. But > Fudge also knows that doing this to the famous Harry Potter is not > going to be popular. > > So what does Snape do? He FIRST plants in Fudge's head a > perfect 'get out' clause - the kids weren't responsible. They were > Confunded. (And yes, he's lying. He's doing a Slytherin 'bad means > are worth it for good enough ends') Then he tentatively walks a > very difficult tightrope between keeping in character in case > Harry has woken up and *not* convincing Fudge to expel anyone. Look > how many pauses are written for Snape's lines here.> > Jenny from Ravenclaw replies: > Okay, I'm a bit confused here by what you said. If Snape is lying > about the Trio being under a Confundus Spell, then really, he is > helping them by excusing their behavior (hmmm, wonder why he didn't > say they were under the Imperius?). Possibly because Imperius is an Unforgivable? Snape might *say* he'll give Black to the Dementors, but what he actually *does* is bring him back safely to Hogwarts. He gives his reasons for not believing a word of Black's story, but he also gives Black the chance to tell his own side of it to Dumbledore. Confundus, from that point of view, is a 'safe' lie. It leaves Black with a chance. It does not risk dumping him with a life sentence in Azkaban even if he turns out to be innocent. > Is that what you are saying, > bluesqueak? Because if you are, then we are in agreement. > I think we are. I think Snape does lie, mostly by the 'Dumbledore' method of creative truth telling, but always with a good end in view. Here he is trying to help the Trio whilst remaining in his 'I hate Harry' character and whilst giving his viewpoint against Black. > I most definitely agree with Amanda here (we 'geists usually stick > together, except when it comes to House Elves :-P). I would find > it hard to believe and even harder to accept if Snape turns out to > be a bad guy after all. JKR has made him deliberately vague and > confusing and quite unlikeable, which is exactly what makes him > such a brilliant character. He is very real. Don't we all know > people who aren't very nice but aren't bad, either? Likewise; I love the portrayal of Snape because it's so rare in fiction marketed for children that we get a good-but-nasty person. I would hate it if he turns out to be evil in the end; such a cop-out. However, I wouldn't be remotely surprised if at one point we end up believing that Snape has betrayed Harry because he hates him so much - and then find out it's all an essential part of the 'defeat Voldemort' plan. > One last comment here: Fudge. We all know Fudge would never > support expelling Harry, Fudge: "...the boy can talk to snakes, Dumbledore, and you still think he's trustworthy?" (GoF UK hardback, p. 613) > but I don't think he's the one who has the power to > do so anyway. Dumbledore is the the Headmaster of Hogwarts and > Dumbledore alone is the one who has the power to keep or expell > Harry or any other student. Fudge may try to put pressure on > Dumbeldore from time to time, but Fudge has nothing on Dumbledore, > IMO. Fudge: quote from GoF (UK hardback, p. 615) "Now see here, Dumbledore, I've given you free rein always. I've had a lot of respect for you. I might not have agreed with some of your decisions, but I've kept quiet. 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." Which suggests that while Hogwarts has an independently appointed Headmaster (CoS) it is ultimately under control of the Ministry; Fudge merely gives Dumbledore a free hand as long as the school runs well. Tricky arguing from RL, but this would agree with an English/Welsh State School model, where the local/national government has the power to insist that a pupil be expelled or re-instated, or to decide what pupils are taught, whatever the Headteacher's wishes. In CoS, Dumbledore says: "Yet again, Cornelius, I tell you that taking Hagrid away will not help in the slightest." (CoS UK paperback, p. 193). But Fudge still has the power to take Hagrid off to Azkaban. And does. > Pip From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Sat Jun 1 16:58:03 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 17:58:03 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape is an HONEST nasty person References: Message-ID: <00c501c2098d$7fdfb040$01cb7ad5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 39287 bluesqueak wrote: > Oh, now if Snape *is* under cover, the Confunded episode is > completely brilliant. I mean, he can safely scream about expulsion > all he likes with Dumbledore and McGonagall - they know what he's > doing. I long suspected that his grand "Exterminate" - er, "Expell" - performances are just that - performances. When he really wanted to scare Harry, he knew perfectly well how to be quiet, discreet and effective. Ironically, that was about the only time Harry was really innocent. > > Oh, and why does Dumbledore look as if he's 'quite enjoying himself' > (PoA, UK hardback, p. 306) when Snape pulls his "Those darn kids" > hysterics at the end of PoA? A valued colleague is having a nervous > breakdown and you're having *fun*? Oh, how can I thank you enough? You have resolved my personal "The most cruel Dumbledore moment" and "The most embarassing Snape moment" in one beautiful theory. > > Or has Dumbledore had time to pull Snape to one side and say > something along the lines of 'Look, you know I trust you, just do me > a favour and trust me on Black. Now go in there and convince everyone > that you hate Potter's guts.' > > Is he enjoying the finest acting performance of Snape's career? I just hope it's not the last one. Irene From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Sat Jun 1 17:12:36 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 18:12:36 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hurt/Comfort, Fictional Men and the Women Who Love Them, Including Writers References: Message-ID: <00db01c2098f$87eb18e0$01cb7ad5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 39288 AV wrote: > >Ha! See I have my own theory, which is basically that JKR is more hot > >for Snape than she wants to admit, but that might be a rather > >idiosyncratic interpretation. :-) > > Hee hee heee, see, I think so too! That's interesting, cause she pretends really hard she hates him. But I doubt she is in full denial mode, so may be just preparing a surprise. (And making him die in some noble sacrifice would not count as a surprise, no way ;-) > I don't think we'll be reading _Severus Snape and > the Order of the Phoenix_ next year....but y'know, it certainly is a common > and potent phenomenon. So, now Snape is to be blamed for OoP delay as well? All this extra time JKR spent keeping him in check? :-) > > working on a case for DeadSexy! Moody now, > scaring myself, > AV I read just one ff with a convincing case of Sexy!Moody, but if you are ready to seek inspiration there - just tell. I probably have a link around somewhere. Irene From Edblanning at aol.com Sat Jun 1 17:27:18 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 13:27:18 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A Taste of Moody, With A Big Scoop of Krum and Karkar... Message-ID: <18.2002b79d.2a2a5df6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39289 Cindy: But there are two other men who ought to generate Hurt-Comfort > feelings, but for some reason, no one ever has anything positive to > say about them. > > The first is Victor. Victor is a Star Athlete who gets a bloody > nose at the QWC, taking an iron bludger "full in the face." He > doesn't so much as flinch; it's all in a day's work for Victor. > Still, he manages to catch the Snitch, after diving with "flecks of > blood" visible in the air. He dives from his ship into the frigid > waters of the Lake. Krum gets Stunned by Fake Moody. Later, he > gets Stunned again in the maze and "fell forward, and lay > motionless, facedown in the grass." And, of course, Victor is young > and a man of few words, the Strong Silent Type, which we all are > powerless to resist. > > So tell me. Why is it that no one crushes on Quiddich Star Victor > Krum? Why is it that the women don't hurl themselves forward to > fall at Victor's duck feet, pledging to help him learn to stand up > The trouble with strong, silent types from the literary point of view is that they are er....well....silent. Strong , silent, athletic and good-looking is one thing but strong, silent athletic, duck-footed and stooping is perhaps another. There's not much of a character to get a handle on, I suppose. He doesn't have much interaction with Harry, so we don't see him being developed in that personal way that the objects of crushes need. *And*, (crucially, I think) he is presented as a crush object, but only to silly adolescent girls with whom we don't want to identify. I'm not including Hermione here, I think their attraction is more because of a meeting of minds and the fact that he *doesn't* perceive her as having a crush (she behaves very differently apropos Viktor than she does regarding Lockhart, doesn't she?) Again, I get the impression that JKR doesn't want us to regard him as attractive. But perhaps he'll turn out to be an ugly duckling (he's got the feet for it!) and with further development, he could turn out to be an object of desire. I'm sure he'll be back. I just don't think he's developed enough as a character as yet. Did anyone crush on Snape in Book One? > > Then we have Karkaroff. Karkaroff spent time in Azkaban, just like > Sirius, and turned traitor to his friends, just like Snape. > Karkaroff takes a beating, too. The Dark Mark burns on his arm, > causes him to panic and show far more concern than Snape. Karkaroff > also gets intimidated by Fake Moody, just like Snape. Then, > Karkaroff is slammed into a tree by a giant, his "feet dangling in > midair," Hagrid's fist at his throat, finally sliding down the tree > trunk to "huddle at its roots." At the end of GoF, Karkaroff is on > the run, fleeing for his very life. Poor Igor! > > So why don't the women folk around here fall all over each other for > the chance to pluck the twigs and leaves from Karkaroff's silver > hair? Well, for a start there is a feeling in some quarters that his interests lie elsewhere;-). And we spend most of the book assuming he's one the other side (which I agree isn't necessarily a turn-off) and then he is portrayed as a coward by contrast with Snape. He runs; Snape not only stays but apparently goes to risk himself further. The betrayal of his former colleagues *is* showed, which is a bit of a problem, I think (don't we respect Mrs Lestrange more?) as it appears not to be out of contrition but fear for his own skin. Panic is not attractive. He doesn't have any redeeming qualities such as acerbic wit, either. > > So. It's very kind of you to offer, but for the time being, I think I'll decline! :-) I think the hurt-comfort thing only works if there is already some other attraction or potential attraction. It doesn't of itself make someone attractive. > > Cindy (who may have to start a support group for women who are > willing to crush on some of the less obvious crush objects in the > Eloise, who is always struck by the lack of competition between list members who crush on the same characters, but thinks things might be a bit different in RL! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jun 1 17:36:25 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 17:36:25 -0000 Subject: Snape is an HONEST nasty person In-Reply-To: <00c501c2098d$7fdfb040$01cb7ad5@oemcomputer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39290 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Irene Mikhlin" wrote: > bluesqueak wrote: > > > Oh, now if Snape *is* under cover, the Confunded episode is > > completely brilliant. I mean, he can safely scream about expulsion all he likes with Dumbledore and McGonagall - they know what he's doing. Irene: > I long suspected that his grand "Exterminate" - er, "Expell" - performances are just that - performances. When he really wanted to scareHarry, he knew perfectly well how to be quiet, discreet and effective. Ironically, that was about the only time Harry was really innocent. > Pip/Blue!squeak > > Oh, and why does Dumbledore look as if he's 'quite enjoying himself' (PoA, UK hardback, p. 306) when Snape pulls his "Those darn kids" hysterics at the end of PoA? A valued colleague is having a nervous breakdown and you're having *fun*? Irene: > Oh, how can I thank you enough? You have resolved my personal "The most cruel Dumbledore moment" and "The most embarassing Snape moment" in one beautiful theory. > > > Yes!Yes! I've often thought so, but never managed to state it so convincingly. Pip: > > Is he enjoying the finest acting performance of Snape's career?<<< I'd say the Oscar goes to The Egg and The Eye, when Snape makes Moody, Harry and Filch all believe he doesn't know that Harry's there. That's a far tougher audience than Fudge, and a solo performance. Of course he knows Harry's there. Snape knows where the trick steps are just as well as anybody. But I suspect it will be topped when Snape has to convince Voldemort that he's been faithful all along. Pippin From ComtessadeChats at cs.com Sat Jun 1 17:54:54 2002 From: ComtessadeChats at cs.com (ComtessadeChats at cs.com) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 13:54:54 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Mirror of Erised, Harry's Family Message-ID: <47.1dc18934.2a2a646e@cs.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39291 I have a question about the Voldemort as Harry's grandfather idea. Didn't Tom Riddle and Hagrid attend Hogwarts together? I can't remember how many years there were between them, but I am assuming two or three. So that would mean that Hagrid too, would be old enough to be Harry's grandfather. I never got the impression that Hagrid was that old. A bit older than Harry's parents, yes, but not a whole generation. What do you think? Lysa From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Jun 1 20:44:22 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 20:44:22 -0000 Subject: Comparing "house-elfment" to slavery (Part 2) (LONG) In-Reply-To: <20020601144917.51353.qmail@web20402.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39292 Ama, all speculated out, wrote a double post on the elf's enslavement. Her theory can be reduced to: elves are enslaved. They're brainwashed. This is *wrong*. Wizards are bad for doing so. The elves must be liberated. It includes a lot of more detail, but (I hope), those are the main ideas (if I got any of them worng, I'm sure she'll promptly correct me. I'm looking forward to it, in fact). Not that it matters, since I'm going to be proposing my alternatives, before the sparks fly. Now, for the disclaimer: The ideas that follow have already been expressed by an individual, in this list (namely, me). None are really new (haven't the time, sorry). Said individual does not, in RL, defend in any way slavement, oppresion or any form of discrimination. He also reserves the right to change ideas at some (or several) points in the future. If any of these theories prove to be correct, he reseves the right to shout "I told you so" and point accusatory fingers. Some of this disclaimers are not meant to be taken seriously. Have a nice day. Getting on: Black slavery-Elf slavery parallelism ------------------------------------- The problem with that paralellism (and any other slave paralellism) is that all known groups that at one time or another have been prosecuted *desired* to be free and equal and have rights, etc (even if some of the members prefered to mantain their status-quo). Hermione believes that the elves situation and circumstance could improve by way of her campaign, but the sad reality is that that campaign is *against* the desires of the *elves themselves*. They feel proud of what they are, and DO NOT WANT TO CHANGE. Hermione defends her position by the phrase "it will be good for them, even if they don't realise it". ("For your own good" is phrase that always fills my heart with fear, because it implies -sooner or later- quite a bit of pain. I also find it very shacky moral ground.) Hermione also talks about brainwash, but I don't belive that idea. The fact is that elves are a happy, proud race both with their lives and jobs (except for the occasional exception: Dobby), and I belive firmly in not disturbing someone happy just for the sake of giving them something they don't want (or possibly need!). Note: If anyone can find an example of this situation (people who were happy with their lives and something we -occidental civilization- hold dear was imposed on them, resulting in improved happines for them), I'd be happy to hear it. The ones I can think of normally end in disaster (American indians, both from North America and South America and australian aborigenes(sp) sort of leap to mind), although my examples aren't about freedom but technology being imposed (which, nontheless, whe occidentals tend to view as a form of liberty). The Winky situation ------------------- My second defence of the elves enslavement comes from the observation of the typical elf's behaviour after the liberation (I posted, way back, a theory on why Dobby is the exception and Winky the typical elf. However, I'm not going to repeat myself. if you do not agree with this classification, the next point isn't valid until we discuss it) I think we agree that Winky has NOT received well her liberation. The sad reality is that she's in desperate need of psicological assistence over the loss of her position, at first glance because of the dishonour of the situation, but on further study because she feels that she was taking care of the Crouch family. Winky firmly believes that neither of them were capable of taking care of themselves without her help (and I'm inclined to believe that that is the case, but it's beside the point). Winky, thus, considers her job extremelly important for the well-being of members of another species, and accepts that responsability without expecting anything in exchange. That last conclusion deals an interesting parallel to the real world. I've known quite a few people who work for non-profit organizations (including myself), and they have the same basic impulses of Winky (and no-one has ever objected to the fact that those people worked for nothing appart from basic needs). Of course, you can counter that by saying that none of those were supposed to punish themselves over trivial matters, but (in the cases were those people helped other humans) they did have the moral obligation to keep the secrets of the people helped, and other clauses asociated to the elves enslavement. The Dobby situation ------------------- The trouble with the elf enslavement is, in fact, Dobby's particular working conditions. Would you believe Dobby (or Winky), should they ever work for the Weasleys, would be forced to hit their heads against lamps over trivial matters? No, the Weasleys would never allow it (much less encourage it as the Malfoys did). The problem is that we don't have enough cases to make a real study of the wrking conditions of the house elves. However, we know about 100 elves, and only one had been regularly punished (there is no evidence of Winky ever having been punished. In fact, it looks like she could bully around Crouch Sr. with ease). Hogwarts elves are well treated, and I don't think most of the wizard families would think of punishing such increadibly fast and efficient workers. The Atan parallelism -------------------- **Note: this is the weakest of my arguments, based on any number of shacky arguments, and included, after much self-debate, because, nonetheless, I'd like it to be true and because it's the only one with an acronym: ENSLAVEMENT (Elves Need Slavery Lest Aggression and Violence Erupt, Making Extinction Near Threat)** I'm not sure if anyone remembers, but I have been working on an essay comparing most of the fantasy worlds I've read about (specially revolving on their reality rules and how they differ from real life reality rules). I have obvioulsy included HPotterverse. The subject of the elves enslavement is one that interests me quite a bit, because it reflects another enslavement that appeared on my favourite books, the Tamuli series by David Eddings. (If you haven't read them, this is going to sound somewhat strange). In that series, there is a race of humans (Atans) that, over the centuries, had bred for the perfect warrior (going for big, agile, and other warlike qualities when arranging marriages). They took it too far, and they discovered they were turning homicidal. To quote: "The Atans observed that big people win more fights than little people. [...]Size became the most important consideration [when parents chose the mates of their children][...]The Atans prized other characteristics as well - ability, strength, aggressiveness and homicidal vindictiveness.[...]The Atan breeding programme finally went too far, I guess. The Atans became so aggresive that they started killing each other [...]. It got to the point that there was no such thing in Atan as a mild disagreement. They'd kill each other over weather predictions.[...] Anyway, the Atans had a very wise king [...]. He saw that his people were on the verge of self-destruction. He made a contact with [another] goverment and surrendered his people into perpetual slavery - to save their lives" David & Leigh Eddings, Domes of Fire (Book I of Tamuli) This situation reflects my fourth view on the Pottervese elves: they realized that they had too much power (and I do mean too much: they apparate in Hogwarts, need no wand, throw wizards down stairs with thought alone, etc.) and put themselves into slavery because they couldn't stop themselves from killing each other (or iniciating a war with another species). Of course, this is based on a piece of canon we do not have: the origins of the elves's enslavement. However, Ama and I already ran to the ground this particular argument, so I'm not going to continue it (even though there is more to it. Check messages around 37100, the Free elves unite(?) thread). That more or less covers my old ideas. If Ama (or anyone else, for that matter) decides once again to pick up the gauntlet, I'll do my best to answer (and maybe come up with a few more theories). Unfortunately, I'm about to come down with a very grave case of examinitis, so I don't think I'll be around too much. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who wonders if Ama had forgotten about him, or was looking forward to his counter-arguments and if Laura Huntley is still around. Also, he who hopes no-one takes him for a pro-slavery (which he isn't). From Joanne0012 at aol.com Sat Jun 1 20:54:30 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 20:54:30 -0000 Subject: Hagrid's age, was Mirror of Erised, Harry's Family In-Reply-To: <47.1dc18934.2a2a646e@cs.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39293 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., ComtessadeChats at c... wrote: > Didn't Tom Riddle and Hagrid attend Hogwarts together? I can't remember how many years there were between them, but I am assuming two or three. So that would mean that Hagrid too, would be old enough to be Harry's grandfather. I never got the impression that Hagrid was that old. A bit older than Harry's > parents, yes, but not a whole generation. What do you think? Yes, he's that old. Remember, Riddle is more than 50 years older than Harry. Or to put it more technically: based on the various clues in the canon (a combination of Riddle events, that infamous Deathday calendar date, etc.) the Lexicon has put Hagrid's birth date in 1929 and Harry's in 1980, a difference of 51 years. And to further underscore the plausibility, the Lexicon has estimated the birth years of Harry's parents as around 1960, so they'd be 31 years younger than Hagrid. http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/w_people.html#Main%20characters From heidi at barefootpuppets.com Sat Jun 1 20:11:52 2002 From: heidi at barefootpuppets.com (barefootpuppets) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 20:11:52 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Evil! Ron imagery Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39294 There had been some discussion in weeks past regarding a certain scene from GoF where Ron and Harry are dueling with fake wands. One was a parrot (Ron) and the other was a fish (Harry). The parrot decapitates the fish. Some had suggested that this was foreshadowing of a future event between Ron and Harry...there was a lot of discussion about events pointing to Harry being immortal or "something." I am currently rereading GoF (it's been out on loan), and I came across another small section which seems to run parallel to the idea of Ron doing *something* to Harry. On page 407, Harry and Ron take a few minutes to play a game of chess. Hermione is trying to convince Harry that he should be working on the second task...but Ron and Harry just play chess. "...she sighed, and she sat down to watch their chess match, which culminated in an exciting checkmate of Ron's, involving a couple of recklessly brave pawns and a very violent bishop." I see a parallel here between the parrot/fish duel. Are HRH the "recklessly brave pawns"? Is Voldemort the "violent bishop." And Ron is the one to checkmate Harry...does this forebode something else? Just some more food for thought... Heidi R. From cindysphynx at comcast.net Sat Jun 1 21:35:02 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 21:35:02 -0000 Subject: Snape is an honest nasty DISLOYAL person (who will betray Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39295 Jenny wrote: >I would find it hard to believe and even harder to accept if Snape >turns out to be a bad guy after all. JKR has made him deliberately >vague and confusing, and quite unlikeable, which is exactly what >makes him such a brilliant character. I hate to go on yet another of my anti-Snape tirades . . . OK, well, that's not true. I *love* going on anti-Snape tirades. ;^) But I don't see why people are so darn confident that Snape won't turn against Dumbledore. I mean, isn't it pretty much a given that *someone* will betray Dumbledore? Dumbledore certainly has to get out of the way so that Harry can save the wizarding world, right? That means that *someone* has to betray Dumbledore, and that someone must have Dumbledore's trust (so that they can get the drop on him) and must be capable of killing him. I don't see Dumbledore losing a duel with Voldemort or being ambushed. Dumbledore is too smart and powerful for that. The only person who can bring down Dumbledore is someone who has his trust and uses that trust to stab him in the back. So who does Dumbledore trust enough to let his guard down? It's a fairly short list, I think: 1. Snape. Boy, that would be a shocker! The ultimate betrayal! Someone to whom Dumbledore gave a second chance, someone "cunning" enough to be in Slytherin, someone who knows a lot of dark curses, someone who knows how DEs operate. I think Snape is the best bet for a betrayal. And a Big one, too! 2. Real Moody. Maybe, as he surely has Dumbledore's trust and is very powerful. This one has real possibilities, if we can get around the problem that Real Moody has to be Good because the whole plot in GoF depends on it. 3. McGonagall. Uh, no. She couldn't even ward off Crouch Jr.'s dementor. 4. Lucius. Interesting, but he has received so little development that this one is hard to swallow. 5. Hagrid. I don't know how JKR would sell this one. JKR has never had Hagrid even *hint* that he might suddenly become disloyal to Dumbledore. 6. Lupin/Sirius. No. No, no, no. 7. Harry/Ron/Hermione/Neville/Draco. They just aren't strong enough to pull this off, and they won't be for a good long while. 8. Minor teachers (Trelawney, Flitwick, Sprout). Really, why bother? No, the disloyal one *has* to be Snape. He is the only major character who has ever been deliberately disloyal. In fact, disloyalty might be one of Snape's defining characteristics -- he has been disloyal to some extent to Dumbledore, to the Forces of Good (by becoming a DE) and to the DEs (by turning spy). And JKR has certainly planted the seeds to suggest that Snape is quite willing to cross Dumbledore and disobey his instructions (outing Lupin against Dumbledore's express wishes). Yeah, Albus might think about borrowing Moody's Dark Detectors. Cindy (who will pretend to be *astounded* when Severus finally makes his power play against Dumbledore) From heidi at barefootpuppets.com Sat Jun 1 22:07:04 2002 From: heidi at barefootpuppets.com (barefootpuppets) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 22:07:04 -0000 Subject: Snape is an honest nasty DISLOYAL person (who will betray Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39296 Hmmmmm.... Cindy writes: > But I don't see why people are so darn confident that Snape won't > turn against Dumbledore. I mean, isn't it pretty much a given that > *someone* will betray Dumbledore? Dumbledore certainly has to get > out of the way so that Harry can save the wizarding world, right? > > That means that *someone* has to betray Dumbledore, and that someone must have Dumbledore's trust (so that they can get the drop on him) and must be capable of killing him. I don't see Dumbledore losing a duel with Voldemort or being ambushed. Dumbledore is too smart and powerful for that. The only person who can bring down Dumbledore is someone who has his trust and uses that trust to stab him in the back. > > So who does Dumbledore trust enough to let his guard down? It's a > fairly short list, I think: > > 1. Snape. Boy, that would be a shocker! The ultimate betrayal! > Someone to whom Dumbledore gave a second chance, someone "cunning" > enough to be in Slytherin, someone who knows a lot of dark curses, > someone who knows how DEs operate. I think Snape is the best bet > for a betrayal. And a Big one, too! > My response: I agree with you *but* I think this will be a planned event and not a true betrayal. If Dumbledore believes that there is a prophecy which foretells that Godric G's heir will bring down Salazar's heir, then he might be willing to sacrifice himself in order to bring down Voldemort. If he knows that it is of paramount importance to have Snape back in Voldemort's inner circle, I believe that he would be more than willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good. He'd just be heading off for the next adventure, wouldn't he? We know that Dumbledore trusts Snape. We do not know *why* he trust Snape, but he does. Explicitly. Wouldn't it be a great plot twist for Snape to "turn on" Dumbledore in order to get into the inner sanctum...and perhaps Harry comes to know this happen, but Dumbledore's last words are to "trust Snape." OOohhhhh.... Heidi R. From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat Jun 1 22:23:38 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 22:23:38 -0000 Subject: Doomed, they're Doomed! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39297 Since Cindy's mentioned that she thinks Dumbledore will die by means of Evil!Snape betrayal (Naah):-) Anyone got any other feelings on 'Doomed' possibilities between now and the end of Book 7? Hagrid: In love, responsible mission, come to terms with his half- giant-hood. Doomed, he's doomed. (And JKR obviously loves Hagrid, so is he the death she's going to find it very hard to write?) Sirius: Young, handsome, Harry's beloved Godfather, unjustly accused. Another completely doomed character. Death while Trying Bravely to Save Snape would be a bit obvious, but still workable. Besides, Sirius strikes me as the type who'd *enjoy* a good, redeeming death scene. Dumbledore: Wise, noble, (grand) father figure to Harry, leads group of people through dangerous territory (so to speak). Has 'Watch out for the Balrog' sticker on his back. McGonagall: Currently too boring and underwritten to die. Snape: Currently too sneaky, mean and tough to die. His death in a Bravely Redeeming Fashion would have a very high nausea rating. Also A Good Person Who Has Done Evil Things, which could come in useful for Ron (see below). Besides, at least one of McGonagall or Snape has to survive, as someone has to explain all the plot points at the end of Book 7. ;-) Neville Longbottom: More fun alive than dead, as currently hot favourite for Future Staff Member, with Tragic Past and possible Hidden Talents. Colin Creavey: Has already survived one near-death experience, so killing him off would be a bit of a shock. But JKR likes shocks. Dennis Creavey: Yes. Well, we are talking about 'kill the spare' Rowling here. :-) Ginny: Too sweet. Besides, surely JKR exorcised her sadistic tendencies. towards Ginny by the end of CoS? Weasley's other than Ron and Ginny: Probable. There's just so many of them. And it would give us a Deeply Moving Picture of Family Grief. Ron: More likely to Betray Harry Then Repent than actually get killed. Symbolic hints are being dropped all over the place. Interestingly, when Harry read Ron's tea leaves he gave his future as 'trials and suffering' followed by 'great happiness' (GoF UK hardback, p. 81) - is Snape the person who is going to Save Ron? (see above). Hermoine: Would be a bit suicidal, since she's JKR's alter-ego. However, her tendency to forget she's a witch under stress may lead her into serious problems. Pupil Most Likely to Become A Civil Servant/Government Employee. Harry: Could only be more doomed if he walked under a ladder while simultaneously waving at the Headless Horseman. But he may survive his death. Voldemort. Well, what do YOU think? Pip From nmfry at hotmail.com Sat Jun 1 22:31:28 2002 From: nmfry at hotmail.com (N Fry) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 22:31:28 +0000 Subject: Wolfbane Potion - taken when and how much? (was Re: Lupin Is Not An Airhead! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39298 I'm in the middle of rereading PoA and came across some interesting sections that go along with the "Is he or isn't he an airhead?" debate about Lupin. I haven't really sat down to completely think the whole thing through yet. I just wanted to send out my few little thoughts to see if anyone else picked up on this. Feel free to add to or rip to shreads what you see. A word of warning...this is my first post, so a thousand apologies if I violate one of the *many* rules from the Humongous Bigfile. Mahoney said: > >It's evening, but on the first night of the full moon the transformation > >does not occur until (to pick a common 'witching hour') midnight. >So he >has time to check the map, make sure Harry & Co. are either >safe in their >dormitory, or else to go collect them from wherever >they've snuck off to ~ >and still get back, take his potion and curl up under his desk. > The above theory works if you assume that he has to drink the potion just once on the night of the full moon. But in PoA ch. 18, Lupin tells the trio, "As long as I take it *in the week proceeding the full moon*, I keep my mind when I transform..." Earlier (in ch. 8), when Snape drops the goblet of potion off at Lupin's office, he informs Lupin that he made an entire cauldronful if he needs more. Lupin replies that he should probably drink some more the next day. So how much of the potion does Lupin need to take to make it effective? Does he have to take it every day for that proceeding week or does he just need to take a certain amount? If it's just a certain amount, perhaps he usually spreads it out in smaller doses over the week instead of taking it all at once? It may be a lot to take in one drinking, or he may just not want to deal with one large goblet of the nasty tasting stuff. If he has to take it every day for a week, then I suppose I can accept him forgetting it that one night (considering the circumstances) or relying on the fact that he may already have enough of the potion in his system to keep him safe until he can take his last dose. OTOH, if he only had to take it once and had a whole week to do it, it does seem a bit irresponsible to wait until the last minute. prefectmarcus reminds us that: > >Snape tells him that he was bringing the potion when he finds > >the map. Meanwhile, all of this is taking place at night (so the moon has already risen). If you don't believe the "witching hour" theory, then isn't it a bit late to be making sure that Lupin has taken his potion? Not that it's Snape's duty to babysit Lupin and make sure he's safely medicated and locked in his office... Just a thought. As I said, these are just the immediate impressions I had when I reread these sections of the book. More questions than answers, I admit. I'm really curious to see what everyone thinks about this and how it affects the current debate on Lupin. ~ Nik (who has enjoyed lurking and is finally ready to venture into the brave new world of posting) _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From meboriqua at aol.com Sat Jun 1 22:59:16 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 22:59:16 -0000 Subject: Maybe Hagrid is the DISLOYAL person (who will betray Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39299 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > 5. Hagrid. I don't know how JKR would sell this one. JKR has > never had Hagrid even *hint* that he might suddenly become disloyal > to Dumbledore.> Cindy, Cindy, Cindy. How could you turn on me now? You mean you *don't* think Hagrid may be the one to betray Dumbledore? And you claim to be anti-Hagrid? *Snort* Well, I think Hagrid's annoyingly blind loyalty is exactly what could cause problems. I see a possible scenario with Hagird coming back in OoP after a wonderful summer with the giants, thinking differently about the wizard world... I see a possible resentment of the way he was treated at Hogwarts, and a possible turn of loyalty towards his newfound friends... and mom. I'm not explaining this well, here, but Hagrid, to me, is just not stable enough to be consistent with his loyalties. Can anyone out there explain this better than I can? --jenny from ravenclaw, never, ever the Hagrid supporter *********************************************************** From siskiou at earthlink.net Sat Jun 1 22:55:59 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 15:55:59 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Doomed, they're Doomed! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <142568995931.20020601155559@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39300 Hi, Saturday, June 01, 2002, 3:23:38 PM, bluesqueak wrote: > Ron: More likely to Betray Harry Then Repent than actually get > killed. Symbolic hints are being dropped all over the place. > Interestingly, when Harry read Ron's tea leaves he gave his future > as 'trials and suffering' followed by 'great happiness' (GoF UK > hardback, p. 81) - is Snape the person who is going to Save Ron? (see > above). Hm. If Ron really betrays Harry, I can't see "great happiness" in his future, even if he repents. Would Harry really forgive him? Hermione? His family? I can't see Ron find great happiness in leading a life where nobody ever fully trusts him again. But then, I don't believe he will betray Harry. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From fiatincantatum at attbi.com Sat Jun 1 23:10:07 2002 From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 19:10:07 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape Afraid of Lupin, was Oh, but he IS nice In-Reply-To: <001a01c2097d$c68bae00$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <3CF91C0F.3202.49F7FBA@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 39301 On 1 Jun 2002 at 11:05, Alina wrote: > Pippin wrote: > > Alina wrote: > > >>>I don't remember seeing evidence of Snape being scared of > Lupin. He probably was terrified when he was younger, but it > seems to have all gone into hate over the years. <<< > > Snape backs out of the room when he delivers the potion. > > When Snape moves in on the Shack, he ties up Lupin, never > Sirius, though Sirus is supposed to be a wizard who killed > thirteen people with a single curse and may be carrying the knife > he used to attack the Fat Lady and Ron's curtains. Obviously > Snape considers Lupin the greater threat. > > > Reply: > > I don't really think he backed out of the room because he was afraid, more > like he wanted to see what Lupin and Harry were talking about. Or perhaps > he was even worried about Harry. As for considering him the greater > threat, wouldn't you? Lupin is a werewolf and Sirius Black is supposed to > be mostly drained by the Dementors. Even if Snape still has fear left from > his childhood, I think it's more or less a common-sensical fear. > One thing you are all forgetting. Snape wasn't *tying up* Lupin to prevent him from moving ... he was *silencing* him. PoA, US edition, Chapter 19: "You fool," said Lupin softly. "Is a schoolboy grudge worth putting an innocent man back inside Azkaban?" BANG! Thin, snakelike cords burst from the end of Snape's wand and twisted themselves around Lupin's mouth, wrists and ankles; he overbalanced and fell to the floor, unable to move. That's the last we hear out of Lupin until someone ungags him later in the chapter. Snape wasn't afraid of what Lupin might DO, he was afraid of what Lupin might SAY. -- Fiat Incantatum fiatincantatum at attbi.com The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason. T. S. Eliot "Murder in the Cathedral" From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Sat Jun 1 23:22:58 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 00:22:58 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape is an honest nasty DISLOYAL person (who will betray Dumbledore) References: Message-ID: <006f01c209c3$450dcc00$258001d5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 39302 > 1. Snape. Boy, that would be a shocker! But would it? I think lots of readers are not convinced he is on the right side at all. And the younger readers hate his guts, I would guess. > 4. Lucius. Interesting, but he has received so little development > that this one is hard to swallow. Would that count as betrayal? Dumbledore does not trust him anymore than he trusts Voldemort. > > 5. Hagrid. I don't know how JKR would sell this one. JKR has > never had Hagrid even *hint* that he might suddenly become disloyal > to Dumbledore. But signs are everywhere! In the first chapter Dumbledore practically predicts his own death as a result of trusting Hagrid! ;-) You don't have to be disloyal to hurt someone. Think Jar-Jar Binks and how easy it was to set him up. > > 6. Lupin/Sirius. No. No, no, no. Sirius has this unfortunate tendency to speak or even act before he thinks. I would say "think Jar-Jar" again, but something tells me that you are a Sirius lover, so I won't. :-) Irene From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jun 1 23:26:05 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 23:26:05 -0000 Subject: Comparing "house-elfment" to slavery (Part 2) In-Reply-To: <20020601144917.51353.qmail@web20402.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39303 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., ladjables wrote: How do you > help someone who does not believe he is oppressed? > Many listers have stated that the problem with > comparing house-elfment to slavery is that seeing > freedom as disgraceful is unknown in human society. > This is untrue. > > The many slave rebellions thwarted by domestic slaves > who, comfortable in their positions, frequently warned > their masters of such plots to overthrow the > plantocracy, attest to the fact that freedom, once > seen as eviction, expulsion and exile, is distasteful > to some. Dave also gives a very nice example of the > women who opposed the Suffragettes. Henceforth, I am > referrring to these women as house-wives. This is interesting. I believe I am the one who said that seeing freedom as disgraceful is unknown. I am aware that many times slaves have co-operated with their masters in order to prevent rebellion. That isn't what I was talking about, though. Crouch punished his rebel slave by freeing her. I am not learned about this, does anyone know if there are parallels to this in human slave societies? Winky was not outlawed or exiled. Her punishment was freedom alone. Her reaction to being freed seems to be more like a Victorian domestic who has been given a bad character by her previous employer, or a house-wife who has been abandoned or divorced, but those are not slavery situations. The difference is that the wife and the domestic worker derive their status in society at large from the social standing of the master of the house. This is not true, as far as I know, of slaves. House slaves in the old South might have more social standing among other slaves, but even the lowliest free person would look down on them, I think. Since slaves do not derive rank from their master, they can't lose it if they are freed. Therefore freedom is a step up. They might refuse freedom out of fear or hopelessness, but that is not the same thing as being persuaded that freedom is an inherently more degraded state than enslavement. I am not sure what was meant in the original Nel question naming "Little Black Sambo" and the House Elves as pro-slavery works. LBS was considered racist because the illustrations were caricatures of black people and the names "Sambo" "Mumbo" and "Jumbo" were once derisive names for black slaves in America. Unless the House Elves speech pattern is taken to be a demeaning caricature of black English, I don't see the parallel. The Elves are not the only ones who speak a dialect. Hagrid and Stan Shunpike do too. This leads me to think the House Elves' manner of speaking is meant to indicate their lack of education, not their racial inferiority. Hermione backs this up when she says the Elves are "brainwashed and uneducated." I think the import of the second half of this statement is being over looked. How much difference would education make in the way the House Elves view their status? Dobby seems to think critically, but the rest of the House Elves don't seem to have this skill. Perhaps they can't tolerate being given contradictory information? Dobby has to punish himself whenever he states information opposite to what he is supposed to think about his masters, and when Hermione starts haranguing the Hogwarts Elves to stand up for themselves, they react as if in panic and push all three of the Trio out of the kitchen. Pippin who agrees that Hermione's "you have a right to be unhappy" speech is very funny indeed From cindysphynx at comcast.net Sat Jun 1 23:29:57 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 23:29:57 -0000 Subject: Maybe Hagrid is the DISLOYAL person (who will betray Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39304 I wrote: > 5. Hagrid. I don't know how JKR would sell this one. JKR has > never had Hagrid even *hint* that he might suddenly become >disloyal to Dumbledore. Jenny scolded: > Cindy, Cindy, Cindy. How could you turn on me now? You mean you > *don't* think Hagrid may be the one to betray Dumbledore? And you > claim to be anti-Hagrid? Oh, dear. It has come to this. My anti-Hagrid credentials are being questioned right out in the open like this. This is so sad. Fear not, Jenny! I am still anti-Hagrid, and I still think he will be pushing up Devil's Snare by the end of OoP. No, we're still in this anti-Hagrid thing together. And the last time I checked, there weren't any others with anti-Hagrid sentiments, so it's just you and me, kid. ;-) I think Hagrid will die in some fashion other than betraying Dumbledore, though. Heck, I think it is more likely that Hagrid will die *defending* Dumbledore than betraying him. In fact, since no one was taken with the idea that Norbert will carry Hagrid off to be eaten alive on a mountaintop, I'll go with another scenario. Ever-So-Evil Real Moody will be the perp, see. Evil Real Moody will be sneaking up on Dumbledore, about to betray him. Hagrid will catch on and will take an AK curse with Dumbledore's name on it. (Hmmm, I wonder if it is possible to be killed by an AK curse intended for someone else?) Canon? Oh, yeah. There's definitely something going on between Moody and Hagrid. In GoF, Moody and Hagrid are at the Three Broomsticks. Why, though? JKR didn't establish any real relationship between Moody and Hagrid to explain why they would go out for drinks, did she? After all, Hagrid is half-giant, and "loads [of giants] got themselves killed by Aurors." Doesn't it seem likely that Moody (that is, Crouch Jr. operating on information supplied by Real Moody) would be wary of pursuing a relationship with Hagrid, as Crouch Jr. surely must know about the conflict between giants and Aurors? And isn't it likely that Hagrid would avoid contact with Moody, perhaps to avoid having his half-giant status revealed? That scene always struck me as a little odd, to tell you the truth. Jenny: >Well, I think Hagrid's annoyingly blind loyalty is exactly what >could cause problems. I see a possible > scenario with Hagird coming back in OoP after a wonderful summer >with the giants, thinking differently about the wizard world... I >see a possible resentment of the way he was treated at Hogwarts, >and a possible turn of loyalty towards his newfound friends... and >mom. I agree that Hagrid's blind loyalty will surely come into play, but it is hard to imagine how this might happen. I can see Hagrid struggling with loyalty to his giantess mother and Dumbledore, but it is hard to imagine where JKR might go with this. Cindy (who thinks Dumbledore's team might actually be stronger without Hagrid) From fiatincantatum at attbi.com Sat Jun 1 23:31:42 2002 From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 19:31:42 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] TBAY: Evil! Ron imagery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3CF9211E.6662.4B345F8@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 39305 On 1 Jun 2002 at 20:11, barefootpuppets wrote: > I see a parallel here between the parrot/fish duel. Are HRH > the "recklessly brave pawns"? Is Voldemort the "violent bishop." > And Ron is the one to checkmate Harry...does this forebode something else? It might be good to remember that in the first story *Harry* was the bishop in the giant chess game, and also the one to checkmate the white king, after the knight (Ron) was sacrificed to provide the opening. -- Fiat Incantatum fiatincantatum at attbi.com The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason. T. S. Eliot "Murder in the Cathedral" From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat Jun 1 23:19:25 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 23:19:25 -0000 Subject: Doomed, they're Doomed! In-Reply-To: <142568995931.20020601155559@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39306 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne wrote: > Saturday, June 01, 2002, 3:23:38 PM, bluesqueak wrote: > > > Ron: More likely to Betray Harry Then Repent than actually get > > killed. Symbolic hints are being dropped all over the place. > > Interestingly, when Harry read Ron's tea leaves he gave his future > > as 'trials and suffering' followed by 'great happiness' (GoF UK > > hardback, p. 81) - is Snape the person who is going to Save Ron? (see > > above). > > Hm. > > If Ron really betrays Harry, I can't see "great happiness" > in his future, even if he repents. > > Would Harry really forgive him? Hermione? His family? What if they all feel Ron's betrayal was partly their fault? That they should have spotted the signs before it was too late? Or even helped to cause it? See Debbie's post #39283 for some very interesting points on how Ron is being diminished and belittled (*completely* unintentionally) by Harry and the Weasley family. > > I can't see Ron find great happiness in leading a life where > nobody ever fully trusts him again. You only have to find one person who trusts you to have 'great happiness'. Soppy, but true. :-) Pip ('she's just a big softy really') squeak From dalesian at shaw.ca Sat Jun 1 23:46:47 2002 From: dalesian at shaw.ca (Teri Gardner) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 16:46:47 -0700 Subject: Sirius and Snape; Ron Weasley In-Reply-To: <1021957765.1332.5002.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020526215127.009fc600@shawmail> No: HPFGUIDX 39307 Finwich wrote: >James Potter, Sirius Black and at this point, Peter Pettigrew, *did* >help Remus Lupin to accept his werewolfishness - Severus Snape was >preventing it. That's what might put the 'trick' in perspective. I'm >sure Sirius believed the Slytherin 'nosy git' knew about the willow, >believed beyond question. He didn't know did he know about Remus, >though - so he asked a trick-question to find out without giving up >anything - leading to the famous near-death experience for Snape. I'm not sure I agree with this line of reasoning. I for one would side with Snape on this one and wouldn't let Sirius off the hook that easily. I know a lot of folks try and justify Sirius' action in this case, and sure, it was a schoolboy prank that almost went very wrong, but to me Sirius, even as an adult, has no apparent regrets for pulling it. That attitude is seriously creepy to me and for that reason, I'm not terribly fond of Sirius (now just WHY I am totally in lust with Snape is beyond even my comprehension, but this is not the place to discuss my apparent sanity - or lack thereof). It's pretty clear to me that Sirius set up Snape and didn't care much about the consequences. Many years later, he still doesn't. >- Snape *still* has the problem about Lupin (who fortunately is >already in terms with it). I dunno, if I came in close proximity to a creature that could have killed me and nearly did, I'd still have a problem with it too and be very wary of the same for a very long time afterwards. >- Why does Snape choose to call it *murder*? It's not like Sirius >*forced* him to go? He definately has a problem about himself that's >unsolved (which is also why he's so *nasty* - he's not all goody yet, >but working on it - Dumbledore is *guiding* him; making up with >Sirius is the last thing he needs to be totally one with himself). I doubt Snape will ever be all "goody" (God forbid!). And I could see why he would choose to call it "murder". Snape was set up to nearly come face to face with a werewolf. Sirius certainly knew what would happen if that is what Snape confronted and really doesn't seem to care. Sure he didn't force Snape to go, but he certainly played on Snape's natural tendency to be nosey. Of course, Snape too has no bones about doing Sirius in when he confronts him. All Sirius had to do is give him a reason and he'd do it. No wavering on Snape's part as far as I can tell. Sailor Moirae wrote: >JKR has hinted that a Weasley will join with Voldemort. I think that >it'll be Percy because he strives for authority in any situation. He >was also looking at a book called, "Prefects Who Gained Power". He >is the unlikeliest to go evil also. I still think it's going to be Ron, even if it seems a bit obvious to a lot of folks. It certainly would throw a wrench in things. But then again, that's just me. Pippin wrote >BTW, Ron should get credit for keeping a cool head in >emergencies. Even when terrifed by Aragog, he's still functional >enough to rescue Fang in CoS. He's also willing to take damage >points, which Harry thinks must be an important part of the Auror >job. Yes, as a Ron fan, I certainly agree that in tight situations, he can keep his cool and is strategic in his thinking (most of the time anyway). I know of some folks who don't see him as very smart at all. He's not necessarily good at reading =people=, but he really does keep his head when under pressure and usually can read a situation quite well. Teri From pennylin at swbell.net Sun Jun 2 01:46:16 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 20:46:16 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Doomed, they're Doomed! References: Message-ID: <017b01c209d7$490b2140$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 39308 Hi -- Pip gave us an analysis of the likelihood of death & doom for various characters -- I agree that Hagrid & Dumbledore are both DOOMED ..... they both definitely have the DOOMED target on their backs. :::nods::: Sirius -- No! No, no, no. :::falls to her knees & pleads with JKR:::: No...no.... Lupin -- I would add him to the category of DOOMED though. A werewolf & one of JKR's top favorite characters. Yes, he's doomed for certain. <<<>>> Boring?? Boring? But ... but.... McGonagall is one of my top 5-6 characters. Really. No, she's not boring at all. In fact, I think she is often underestimated. After all, Cindy ... *Snape* didn't do a darn thing to save Barty Crouch Jr. from that dementor either, you know. :--) <<<>>>>>> No, I think Snape is another one with DOOMED written all over his forehead. There's just no way that he will survive the series IMO. <<<<<>>>> Ack! Now you're assuming that *Harry* will die? No. :::more insane pleading with JKR::: If there's one character that I want most desperately to survive, it would be Harry. He deserves to survive & be happy. <<<<<<<>>>>>>> Hermione does not have a "tendency" to forget she's a witch under stress. Are you still condemning her for an isolated incident when she was 10/11 yrs old? C'mon. Give the girl a break already. She operates quite well under stress these days actually. Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From wildchildbabe at hotmail.com Sun Jun 2 02:06:36 2002 From: wildchildbabe at hotmail.com (kelly broughton) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 21:06:36 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Characters Overacting and Overreacting References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39309 Charis Julia wrote: ----- Original Message ----- Yes, Harry is of course the supreme paradigm of self--control, isn't he? Heck the kid won't even cut himself a break at the end of GoF and allow himself the good bawling, wailing, blubbering boo-hoo he deserves after the ordeal he's just been through. He feels a "burning, prickling feeling in the corners of his eyes" of course. He has the urge to let out a "howl of misery", sure. But he never gives in. He fights against these annoying, humiliating emotions and what's more prevails. And despite all his addiction to the Mirror of Erised and his Marge-inflating, he's never once as far as I can remember has shed one tear for the loss of his parents. And then there's the many other telling little phrases littered around in the books as well: "* Dear Professor Dumbledore, Sorry to bother you, but my scar hurt this morning. Yours sincerely, Harry Potter.* Even inside his head the words sounded stupid." "There was no point in putting in the dream, he didn't want it to look as though he was too worried."-GoF "He felt it would be too melodramatic to say "to kill me"-GoF Harry is the apotheosis of emotional control. Well, I really am not surprised. Keep in mind the kind of atmosphere he grew up in, namely the Dursely household. I honestly believe that he was not *allowed* to express any emotion to an extreme degree. This is simply what he has been trained to do, in order not to attract negative attention (which fails anyway). If I grew up in an environment like that, I too would probrably keep any open display of feeling bottled up. Plus the fact that he is in his middle teens- most boys of any culture (correct me if I'm wrong) seem to have trouble expressing deep feeling, unless it is anger or hatred. -kel [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Sun Jun 2 02:21:25 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 22:21:25 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sirius and Snape; Ron Weasley Message-ID: <102.15fc5361.2a2adb25@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39310 In a message dated 6/1/2002 8:25:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dalesian at shaw.ca writes: << I'm not sure I agree with this line of reasoning. I for one would side with Snape on this one and wouldn't let Sirius off the hook that easily. I know a lot of folks try and justify Sirius' action in this case, and sure, it was a schoolboy prank that almost went very wrong, but to me Sirius, even as an adult, has no apparent regrets for pulling it. That attitude is seriously creepy to me and for that reason, I'm not terribly fond of Sirius (now just WHY I am totally in lust with Snape is beyond even my comprehension, but this is not the place to discuss my apparent sanity - or lack thereof). It's pretty clear to me that Sirius set up Snape and didn't care much about the consequences. Many years later, he still doesn't. >> The whole prank incident has been debated over and over again, and I've finally decided to toss in my 2 cents. I believe that Sirius wanted to scare the living daylights out of Snape, but never meant for him to be in serious danger. Sirius is portrayed mostly, IMO, as a good man, who tries with all his might to protect Harry, and he seemed to be a good friend to Remus and James. One reason I don't believe he was trying to really harm Snape, is because I have done some very stupid things (and so have my friends) that seemed hilarious at the time, but could have had very horrible consquences. Course no one was at risk of being killed by a werewolf, but people could've been seriously hurt. Some things seem really funny and cool at the time, but are realized to be a horrible idea afterwards. Also, as far as Sirius feeling guilty for it now - I see Sirius as a very proud man, and I think it would kill him to be grovely and apologetic to Snape now. I'll bet that he does feel guilty and very bad inside, but he and Snapre are not friends, and do not get along, and I think it would be hard for Sirius to readily admit that he was giant prat. He feels what he should feel, but doesn't want to further ruin his pride - after all, the poor guy just got out of Azkaban. *Chelsea* From pennylin at swbell.net Sun Jun 2 02:45:51 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 21:45:51 -0500 Subject: Hurt-Comfort and reader crushes; Ron; Harry's sensitivity References: Message-ID: <018601c209df$9bc2b120$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 39311 Hi -- We had a babysitter no-show .... so *I* have a Sat night in front of the computer .... Pippin said: <<<>>>>>> Whyever not? She's either 14/15, and frankly, from her side of it, it appears reasonably innocent. He definitely has stronger feelings for her; that much is obvious. But, we don't know *what* she said to him when they were saying their "good-byes" at the end of GoF. Did she say she'd ask her parents about visiting him in Bulgaria? Did she let him down gently? Did she just remain neutral with a "we'll see" sort of attitude? Will Krum even be back in England in OOP? Nah, I don't have a problem with it. Besides, Hermione seems to be the type to be attracted to older men. We've commented before that she might have a "thing" for successful men (or in the case of Lockhart, men who *appeared* at first blush to be successful). I also wonder if she doesn't have a thing for *brave* men. ("He was very brave, wasn't he?" said Hermione ...." at the QWC). Because I responded to the notion that Ron appeals to "mature tastes" with derisive laughter, Pippin said: << >>> 'Fraid I'm still not seeing how this is a "good thing." Ron appeals to the cynical amongst us? ???? I said: > But, seriously ... when does Ron show instances that he can *give* comfort? I've thought hard about this, and I can't really honestly come up with anything that falls into what I would subjectively rate as "giving comfort." <<< Pippin responded with: <<>>>>>>> I wasn't really looking for a comparison of Ron & Hermione's styles in a particular isolated incident. I was actually hoping to get some instances of Ron giving what I would call "comfort." Figuring out that Harry might want to play Quidditch was just an instinctive guess based probably on Ron's desire to let off some steam in a physical way. I think we're meant to know that Hermione doesn't get it; this is underlining that males react to stress differently than females. Big surprise. :--) Mind you, this doesn't make it any less what Harry needed at that moment, but I'm not sure I'd term Ron's action as "comfort" per se. Maybe we're operating under a different definition of "comfort" is all. When you originally said that Ron was someone who'd demonstrated an ability to give & receive "comfort," I had an immediate mental image of something very different than what's been suggested so far. I think I'm thinking of comfort more in the sense of how Hermione responds to Neville after Moody's class or how Sirius responds to Harry when Harry's just seen the dragons or, most classic, how Molly responds to Harry in the hospital wing post-Voldy rebirth. I suppose that explains my reaction of "Huh? Ron, a great comforter?" :--) <<<<<< In the event, though I will admit Hermione made an effort, I don't see it as particularly comforting. Afterwards, Harry feels "a large weight of anxiety" and doesn't know what to do about it.>>>>>>> Giving comfort doesn't mean that you find a solution to the other person's problems. Just because she can't "fix things" for Harry doesn't mean that she didn't offer comfort or that he didn't find her actions comforting. After all, he is "grateful" that she brought him some toast from the Great Hall & offered him a chance to take a walk & talk. :--) <<<>>> For the record, I don't think there's any such thing as perfection. Hermione has her faults. They just bother me substantially less than Ron's faults. Harry's faults bother me substantially less than Ron's faults. It doesn't mean I can't recognize the character flaws in my favorites -- it's just a subjective judgment that those faults bug me far less (or not at all) than those of some of my least favorite characters. And, Ron falls increasingly lower on my list of favorites; the more I think about him & debate him, the less I like him. I said: >>>I think at this point in the canon, Harry is head & shoulders above Ron in the department of being in touch with his feelings and being capable of having and responding to his own emotions<<<< Pippin responded: <<<>>>>> I take the points of Amy & others that we only have Harry's POV ... so it's difficult or impossible for me or anyone else to say for certain that Harry is more in touch with his emotions than Ron is. True enough. But, looking at the actions of the characters so far, I'd still say that Harry is more sensitive and caring than Ron is. Yes, Pippin makes some points above about how we might be meant to see Ron as having made a "turn around." But, I'm not sold yet that it's a permanent change. I think I'll wait until the end of OOP (at least) before conceding that Ron has resolved all his issues with jealousy, resentment, etc. I definitely don't think that his asking Krum for an autograph means he's let go of his resentment against Krum. *If* Hermione continues to see Krum, don't you think Ron is going to have some issues with that? Charisjulia said: <<<>>> Well, my first point would be that Ron doesn't just accept people for who they are. Lupin is a "werewolf" in Ron's eyes, not Professor Lupin, an excellent DADA instructor who has been especially helpful to Harry. Hagrid is a stupid git who mentioned his giantess mother where someone could overhear him. I don't much care for Ron's prejudices ... and yes, I do see them as prejudices so far. I've heard the counter-arguments ... but I still see him as reactionary and a bit "old school" if you will. He doesn't understand Hermione's progressive attitudes (progressive vis-a-vis the wizarding world norms that is). This just seems a huge red flag of potential conflict for the two of them IMHO. Second, I really don't think that particular incident is evidence that Ron accepts people for "who they are." It is evidence that he was perceptive enough to know that Harry was more concerned about Sirius' safety than he was about his scar hurting. I think this is evidence that Hermione was most worried about *Harry* and not so much about what might or might not happen to Sirius. She was so worried about Harry's safety that she neglected to pick up on what was more important to Harry at that moment. So, this is good evidence that Hermione is not perfect in fact. :::smiles at Pippin::: But, I don't think it makes your point really, Charis Julia. <<>> Has he lied to Hermione? He sort of lied by omission to them both though, didn't he? He didn't tell them about his scar hurting *at all* for some time, and then when he does tell them, he "can't bear to make Hermione look any more anxious than she already did," so he neglects to mention that he dreamt that Voldemort & Wormtail were planning to kill him. In response to my statement that Harry is more in touch with his emotions than Ron at the end of GoF, a stunned Charis Julia argued: <<< Well, I'm blown, I truly am. I * never* read Harry as sensitive. Never. As for comforting, capable of responding to emotions. . . well, I'm going to need some Can(n)on here, I really am. As far as I can see for the most part Harry tends to be rather more than less unaware of others' feelings. His insensitivity in fact often reaches the point of downright rudeness. He's definitely abrupt more than once to Ginny and both of the Creeveys not to mention Dobby and Moaning Myrtle. I know he doesn't like being hero-worshipped but I'm sure it does nothing for Colin's confidence to be cold-shouldered and brushed off all the time. I love Harry, but he's famous and he's just got to learn to deal with that. And you know that little saying of Sirius's about men and their inferiors?>>>> Since when are the Creeveys or Ginny Harry's "inferiors"? They are all students, yes? The Creeveys and Ginny are younger to be sure .... but I don't think there's a relationship of superior/inferior at work there. Since we're having this debate of *what* constitutes canon, it seems not quite right to cite just a JKR interview, but ... ********************* Now we've seen hormones kick in in this book. Are we going to see Harry becoming even MORE like Kevin the teenager, you know, [does Kevin impression] 'Sirius, huh, I hate you, I wish you were back in Azkaban'? I think Ron's more like that isn't he? Ron's more Kevinish. Harry's got so many worries, he needs his friends - he can't afford to alienate them. He's delicate isn't he? He is. He's more your sensitive hero. And more of that stuff happens. *********************** [Source: BBC Newsround chat with JKR, Fall 2000] Not canon enough, you say? I'll give a few off-the-top-of-head references but then must cut this short -- ** giving his last chocolate frog to Neville in PS/SS ** treating Dobby so courteously, even knowing Dobby was about to get him in hot water ...CoS ** his reactions to the Dementors seem evidence of sensitivity & emotional depth to me ... he cries when he hears his father's voice after all ** he tries to make things up with Hermione *twice* in POA ... but both times, it's *Ron* who foils the reconciliation ** he's *worried* through much of GoF ** everything from the point that Harry sees Cedric's murder to the *end* of GoF ... *all* of it shows incredible depth of emotion & sensitivity on Harry's part IMO I'll try to catalogue all this more specifically ... at *some* point. In other words, don't hold your breath. :--) You really don't read Harry as sensitive? He seems the very embodiment of sensitive & vulnerable to me. Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aiz24 at hotmail.com Sun Jun 2 04:00:56 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 00:00:56 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Comforting!Ron, Lying!Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39312 Penny wrote: >Figuring out that Harry might want to play Quidditch was just an > >instinctive guess based probably on Ron's desire to let off some steam > >in a physical way. I think we're meant to know that Hermione doesn't > >get it; this is underlining that males react to stress differently >than >females. Big surprise. :--) Mind you, this doesn't make it any >less >what Harry needed at that moment, but I'm not sure I'd term Ron's >action >as "comfort" per se. Maybe we're operating under a different >definition >of "comfort" is all. When you originally said that Ron was >someone who'd >demonstrated an ability to give & receive "comfort," I >had an immediate >mental image of something very different than what's >been suggested so >far. I think I'm thinking of comfort more in the >sense of how Hermione >responds to Neville after Moody's class or how >Sirius responds to Harry >when Harry's just seen the dragons or, most >classic, how Molly responds to >Harry in the hospital wing post-Voldy >rebirth. I suppose that explains my >reaction of "Huh? Ron, a great >comforter?" :--) Well, I think it shows that you, along with Hermione and probably 90% of women, myself included, find hugs and sympathetic listenings more comforting than "hey, I know, let's play ball." But within the context of Harry's feelings, Ron's suggestion of Quidditch is as sensitive as Hermione's toast offering: both pick up on what he needs right then and offer it without any prying or pride in their own sensitivity. Both are comforting because of their effect. I have the same associations with the word "comfort" as you do, but they assume that typically female models of comfort are the true ones, which is unjustified, nay, sexist. It is really unfair to conclude that Ron just wants to play Quidditch himself--what in canon suggests that this is the case? We know that Harry finds Quidditch a great release when he's worried, and presumably Ron knows it too. If it's instinctive, great--he should keep listening to those instincts. BTW, and off on a tangent, does anyone else want to know whether Harry quakes at the thought of playing with/against the legendary Charlie Weasley? Or whether Ron's a bit intimidated about playing with all these varsity Quidditch players, even if they *are* just his brothers and best friend? >Has he lied to Hermione? Yes, about figuring out the Egg. But: >He sort of lied by omission to them both though, didn't he? Yes, more than once. He doesn't tell them about his wand being linked to Voldemort's (in "Weighing of the Wands," GF, it says he's never told anyone); he doesn't tell them what the Hat said to him and all his subsequent fears that he belongs in Slytherin in CS; he doesn't tell them about hearing his mother's voice for quite some time in PA. Naturally there are lots of things people just happen not to tell their best friends, but these are important items, and in each case the text calls our attention to the fact that Harry hasn't confided in Ron and Hermione. I wouldn't call any of it *lying*, but it does point up the limits of his trust. This thread seems to be an echo of the "is one of them a bester friend than the other" question from a couple of weeks ago, and no, I can't say that Harry's markedly more honest with Ron than with Hermione. It's not as if he lies to Hermione on a regular basis. Amy _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From editor at texas.net Sun Jun 2 04:07:24 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 23:07:24 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape is an HONEST nasty person References: Message-ID: <004101c209eb$01b68aa0$257763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39313 Pip said > I think we are. I think Snape does lie, mostly by the 'Dumbledore' > method of creative truth telling, but always with a good end in view. > Here he is trying to help the Trio whilst remaining in his 'I hate > Harry' character and whilst giving his viewpoint against Black. Just to play Devil's Advocate, it is also entirely possible that Snape does not, in fact, give a rat's ass about helping the kids out of a bad situation, and is saying they were Confunded to lessen their role and get them (especially Harry) out of the limelight for once. Let someone else have it. Like Snape, say. Alternately, he could really believe they were Confunded, but for some reason I really don't think he does. I don't know why that should be so....anyone think he really believes this? Or got any justification for either thought? --Amanda From editor at texas.net Sun Jun 2 04:13:01 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 23:13:01 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape is an HONEST nasty person References: Message-ID: <005501c209eb$ca00a680$257763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39314 Pippin said > I'd say the Oscar goes to The Egg and The Eye, when Snape > makes Moody, Harry and Filch all believe he doesn't know that > Harry's there. That's a far tougher audience than Fudge, and a > solo performance. Of course he knows Harry's there. Snape > knows where the trick steps are just as well as anybody. Now this is new. I don't think Snape had any idea Harry was there, until the very end when he saw the map. Are you saying he realized it before? Because his capitulation and dismissal by Moody are not particularly graceful; nor is it vital to the scene whether Snape knows he's there or not. The point is, Harry was not caught, whether or not the whole castle knew he was actually there. Enlighten me as to why this matters and when you think Snape realized Harry was there. --Amanda From editor at texas.net Sun Jun 2 04:45:38 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 23:45:38 -0500 Subject: Love as a spell component (was the ludicrous Snape is an honest nasty DISLOYAL person) References: Message-ID: <009501c209f0$583ba4a0$257763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39315 My beloved, Jan, is a long ponderer and came to me today with a Harry Potter thought (as he calls them). He has braided several threads together and presented me with several novel takes on things, which I will now proceed to share. There has been general dissatisfaction with the idea that Lily's dying for Harry was what saved him from Voldemort. Plenty of people must have flung themselves in front of others in Voldemort's long career as a Bad Wizard; why should this one time be special or different? We are told the Potters knew Voldemort was after them. Jan suggests that the Potters did more than hide. He suggested that Dumbledore worked with Lily, who was very good at charms, far in advance to set a spell on Harry that would be activated in a worst-case scenario when there was no other way to protect him. A shield or protection that required Lily to do what she did, integrating her love into the rest of the spell and completing it. I mentioned the thread of Stoned!Harry and all the alchemical symbolism to him, and he said this fits, as Lily's love was transmuted into a protection. The achievement of the Stone is via transmutation, and the process of achieving it is intended not to get a Stone, but to transmute the alchemist himself to a higher state of being. It is a process of self-perfection, not a way to obtain gold or live forever, which is presumably why all the many would-be's who tried it for the latter goals all failed. But I digress. This thought of Jan's nicely reduced the aggravation factor of Lily's Sacrifice, as it added the extra edge I thought must be required. I mentioned to Jan that the (accurate) distinction had been made that Lily's love was not, after all, identified as what kept off Voldemort, but as what kept off *Quirrell.* Nor have I understood why Voldemort's spell *rebounded,* rather than just not working. Jan's theory also adds reason for Lily to refuse to move aside; in addition to mother love, she was willingly providing the key element to the last-line and strongest parts of Harry's protection. We already know Dumbledore has set up other parts (the ancient magic that protects him at the Dursleys, and probably more). Dumbledore is a very powerful wizard, and was very involved with the Potters, which is why we figured he helped Lily work this out. Okay. That was good. I was happy. But Jan continued. Flamel. Flamel was to set his affairs in order and then he would die. Ah, but here we are talking about the achiever of the Stone, the one who has achieved the higher state of being. Here is one who is also dying willingly for a noble cause. Has his love or purity of purpose, I wonder, been transmuted into any other type of protective spell? A very good thought by Jan. And now here comes Cindy with this ludicrous disloyalty idea about Snape. But the reason she gives--that Dumbledore has to die, and being betrayed is the only way--hmmm. Dumbledore has to die, eh? Yeah, I agree, he probably will. But if Jan is right, and there is a charm or spell that can transmute a willing and loving death into a powerful protection, I can see another way Dumbledore could exit. A very likely way. So, what do you all think? I love the way that man's mind works. --Amanda From elfundeb at aol.com Sun Jun 2 05:01:03 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 01:01:03 EDT Subject: A Taste of Moody (and others) Message-ID: <131.e9a8631.2a2b008f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39316 > may have to start a support group for women > who are > willing to crush on some of the less obvious crush objects in the > books, as there is far less competition for their affection. Well, if you want really off-the-wall crush objects, how about Flitwick? I know he's short and he squeaks, but that can't be worse than Grotesque! Moody. In fact, the Celluloid Unmentionable aside, I suspect he's rather cute, and he might even be old enough for me. I always pictured him spending weekends in Hogsmeade with his delightful wife, till I realized that he was one of the thirteen at Christmas dinner in PoA and came to the conclusion that he was unmarried. And he could be very romantic -- picture him at dinner waxing eloquent about your perfect Charms (ref. PoA ch. 10, GoF ch. 22). What, Cindy, you don't think Flitwick has Edge? Why, he was a duelling champion! Isn't that enough? Cindy also said to Jenny, regarding Hagrid: > Fear not, Jenny! I am still anti-Hagrid, and I still think he will > be pushing up Devil's Snare by the end of OoP. No, we're still in > this anti-Hagrid thing together. And the last time I checked, there > weren't any others with anti-Hagrid sentiments, so it's just you and > me, kid. ;-) No, there are at least three of us in this club. I believe I'm on record as saying, among other things, that Hagrid would only need a large tankard of mead to crack. > > I think Hagrid will die in some fashion other than betraying > Dumbledore, though. Heck, I think it is more likely that Hagrid > will die *defending* Dumbledore than betraying him. No, I think Hagrid will let something terrible slip a some pub (in giant-land, maybe? I expect Voldemort will have his recruiters there at the same time) and will die in an (unsuccessful) attempt to rein in the information. But I don't think he and Dumbledore will go down in the same volume, unless it's the last. But what about all the Hagrid fans out there? Not a crush object? Debbie, who's been rummaging through her cookbooks for a Wolfsbane Potion recipe just in case Lupin accepts her invitation > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From katzefan at yahoo.com Sun Jun 2 06:34:52 2002 From: katzefan at yahoo.com (katzefan) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 06:34:52 -0000 Subject: Lupin Is Not An Airhead! (WAS Remus: Once more with feeling, ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39317 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: <*snip lots>* > My theory is that he doesn't transform because a boggart- >moon is not a true moon. When Lupin describes the boggart- >dementor he says "It's > the nearest we'll get to a real Dementor." ( PoA, UK hardback, > P.175. ) Not 'it'll be the same as a real Dementor.' > <*snip*> > > Pip > > (Who thinks it was a very good try, though. ;-) ) As a Lupin fan, I'll settle for Mahoney's theory ... although I agree with Pip, that somewhere in all the yelling in the Shrieking Shack perhaps a little alarm bell should've gone off In Lupin's head ... but in denial? Don't think so. How could he be, when this has come up every month for many years? (Also, the moon's phases run for a week, don't they? So he wouldn't be safe 27 days out of 28, as someone said, would he? More like 21 days out of 28.) One interesting point here, though, is that the Boggart, as a 'fake' full moon, fails to affect Lupin. Why, then, does the Boggart, as a 'fake' Dementor, still have such a profound effect on Harry? From aiz24 at hotmail.com Sun Jun 2 10:52:35 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 06:52:35 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Love as a spell component Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39318 Amanda wrote: >I >mentioned to Jan that the (accurate) distinction had been made that Lily's >love was not, after all, identified as what kept off Voldemort, but as what >kept off *Quirrell.* I always love it when Amanda's beloved weighs in. Here he is making sense of threads he's read only secondhand, *plus* he's helping resolve a problem that's been niggling at me for two years (and will likely do so until the series is finished, and possibly beyond). His theory does indeed reduce the aggravation from the "didn't *anyone* else dive in front of a bullet, uh, an AK, during Voldemort's reign of terror?" factor. I will quibble on Quirrell, however. The passage in which Dumbledore explains the love dynamic, as much as that cryptic so-and-so ever explains anything, certainly leaves open the possibility that it is Voldemort's presence within Quirrell that makes the latter unable to touch Harry (emphases added): "But why couldn't Quirrell touch me?" "Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing *Voldemort* cannot understand, it is love. He didn't realize that love as powerfl as your mother's for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign . . . to have been loved so deeply, even thoughthe person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever. It is in your very skin. Quirrell, full of hatred, greed and ambition, *sharing his soul with Voldemort*, could not touch you for this reason. It was agony to touch a person marked by something so good." Furthermore, Quirrell is already full of hatred, greed and ambition and has become Voldemort's servant at the Leaky Cauldron, but he can touch Harry then. It is only later, when he is merged with Voldemort, that he's burned by Harry's skin. Voldemort gives pretty much the same assessment, minus Dumbledore's sentimental claptrap , in GF 22: "His mother died in the attempt to save him -- and unwittingly provided him with a protection I admit I had not foreseen . . . I could not touch the boy." As for whether Lily's sacrificial love kept off the curse back in 1981 . . . well, Harry thinks that's the explanation. It's what he gives to Riddle in CS 17 (emphasis JKR's): "No one knows why you lost your powers when you attacked me," Harry said abruptly. "I don't know myself. But I know why you couldn't *kill* me. Because my mother died to save me." Voldemort also says in GF 33 that his "curse was deflected by the woman's foolish sacrifice." Why deflected instead of just stopped? Who knows. That part doesn't seem to be terribly unusual; we know that other curses, physical objects, etc. can act to deflect (not just block) curses, so it stands to reason that some kinds of shield charms have the same effect. Amy Z _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From Edblanning at aol.com Sun Jun 2 11:33:49 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 07:33:49 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Maybe Hagrid is the DISLOYAL person (who will betray ... Message-ID: <17.29144c0f.2a2b5c9d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39319 Cindy: > > 5. Hagrid. I don't know how JKR would sell this one. JKR has > > never had Hagrid even *hint* that he might suddenly become > >disloyal to Dumbledore. I have a deep inner conviction that Dumbledore is going to die because of Hagrid. I don't think he's going to prove disloyal, but there's plenty of evidence that calls into question his judgement and I think that one of these errors of judgement, perhaps even leading Dumbledore into an attempt to rescue him will prove fatal. As I have said before, I find Dumbledore's words that he would trust Hagrid with his life very disturbing. Eloise > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ali at zymurgy.org Sun Jun 2 13:07:06 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 13:07:06 -0000 Subject: Maybe Hagrid is the DISLOYAL person (who will betray ... In-Reply-To: <17.29144c0f.2a2b5c9d@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39320 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > Cindy: > > > 5. Hagrid. I don't know how JKR would sell this one. JKR has > > > never had Hagrid even *hint* that he might suddenly become > > >disloyal to Dumbledore. > > I have a deep inner conviction that Dumbledore is going to die because of Hagrid. I don't think he's going to prove disloyal, but there's plenty of evidence that calls into question his judgement and I think that one of these errors of judgement, perhaps even leading Dumbledore into an attempt to rescue him will prove fatal. > > As I have said before, I find Dumbledore's words that he would trust Hagrid with his life very disturbing. > I am also convinced that Hagrid will "betray" Dumbledore - although from the characterisation we've have seen so far I don't think it will be deliberate. I also remember another passage in which Ron (I think - I haven't got my books handy) says that Neville will play for England before Hagrid betrays Dumbledore. So watch out for that round- faced boy on a broomstick - it spells doom! Seriously though, it just seems that there is too much emphasis on Hagrid NOT betraying Dumbledore, and I can't recall this being said of any other character. Whilst Snape may or may not prove to be loyal to Voldemort, his loyalty to (or potential betrayal of) Dumbledore is never specifically mentioned. Having said that, I keep thinking that Hagrid is going to be the first "main" character to die which would rather stop him from betraying Dumbledore - unless he gives away a secret which is then oly actd upon after his death Ali Back to making fancy dress for her daughters for the Jubilee Street Party tomorrow, and hoping that the weather will hold. From nithya_rachel at hotmail.com Sun Jun 2 02:18:22 2002 From: nithya_rachel at hotmail.com (errolowl) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 02:18:22 -0000 Subject: Doomed, they're Doomed! In-Reply-To: <017b01c209d7$490b2140$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39321 Penny wrote: > Pip gave us an analysis of the likelihood of death & doom for various characters --I agree that Hagrid & Dumbledore are both DOOMED ..... they both definitely have the DOOMED target on their backs. :::nods::: > Sirius -- No! No, no, no. :::falls to her knees & pleads with JKR:::: No...no.... Sorry to be a pessimist Penny, but IMO Sirius has DOOMED stamped across all his `Wanted' posters .*How* else is he going to be redeemed in the eyes of the WW ? "ooooh! That evil mass murderer was actually the martyr that helped save us all gave his life to protect Harry Potter, he did! (he *does* have that tendency, now) ..poor, misunderstood, unjustly maligned public enemy no.1 (ehm, make that 2). He was a hero all along ? let's give him a posthumous medal" has somewhat more oomph than a general announcement saying `oh, by the way see, we were wrong ? Black is just another nice guy'. That just doesn't begin to cut it. So unless there are some Bangy theories out there .. Errol, who doesn't really believe it, but has that sinking feeling anyway. From smmiley287 at aol.com Sun Jun 2 03:31:56 2002 From: smmiley287 at aol.com (laxrissa26) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 03:31:56 -0000 Subject: Mirror of Erised, Harry's Family In-Reply-To: <47.1dc18934.2a2a646e@cs.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39322 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., ComtessadeChats at c... wrote: > I have a question about the Voldemort as Harry's grandfather idea. Didn't > Tom Riddle and Hagrid attend Hogwarts together? I can't remember how many > years there were between them, but I am assuming two or three. So that would > mean that Hagrid too, would be old enough to be Harry's grandfather. I never > got the impression that Hagrid was that old. A bit older than Harry's > parents, yes, but not a whole generation. What do you think? > > Lysa But then Tom Riddle would have to be James' or Lily's father, and that just dosen't seem likely. Voldemort is said to be the last remaining descendent of Slytherin, but Harry is proven not to be the heir in CoS. That along with your logistics of him not being old enough suggests that he isn't...but then again, we never really know what's possible in HP. -Marisa From awc2 at mac.com Sun Jun 2 04:45:06 2002 From: awc2 at mac.com (awc2) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 00:45:06 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape is an honest nasty DISLOYAL person (who will betray Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: <006f01c209c3$450dcc00$258001d5@oemcomputer> Message-ID: <82CC50FF-75E3-11D6-8FDE-0003937E162E@mac.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39323 On Saturday, June 1, 2002, at 07:22 PM, Irene Mikhlin wrote: >> 1. Snape. Boy, that would be a shocker! > > But would it? I think lots of readers are not convinced > he is on the right side at all. And the younger readers hate > his guts, I would guess. It might work two ways. In one way, it isn't a shocker at all. We've been set up and set up to mistrust Snape only to have him turn out to be doing something legitimate at the end. On the micro level, it would be consistent to lull the reader into assuming that Snape's actions--specifically malicious as they might be--are motivated by a 'goodness' that will be later revealed then pull that carpet out. On the other hand, if you zoom out further, it doesn't seem unreasonable that that's just too obvious. All the anti-Snape people would just shrug and say "see?" and that certainly isn't any fun. Any role Snape has in the ultimate downfall of any of our heroes would certainly be more elaborate than a "told you so" engendering sleight of plot. (At least, I hope so.) -awc P.S. This is my first post to the group; I hope I haven't made any missteps. Nice to finally talk to y'all. From lee.farley at ntlworld.com Sun Jun 2 07:32:18 2002 From: lee.farley at ntlworld.com (LD) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 08:32:18 +0100 Subject: Lupin Is Not An Airhead! (WAS Remus: Once more with feeling, ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c20a07$a0b39e10$55ec6bd5@quack> No: HPFGUIDX 39324 Katzefan wrote: >One interesting point here, though, is that the Boggart, as a 'fake' >full moon, fails to affect Lupin. Why, then, does the Boggart, as a >'fake' Dementor, still have such a profound effect on Harry? Could this be tied into the Witching Hour theory that's been flying around in Lupin's defense lately? Maybe because it wasn't that one certain time, the moon has no effect on him? Or perhaps Lupin had been taking his Wolfsbane potion before the class (although I think it just helps him to keep his mind, and doesn't stop him from transforming). -LD From meboriqua at aol.com Sun Jun 2 13:46:29 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 13:46:29 -0000 Subject: Doomed, they're Doomed! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39325 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > Anyone got any other feelings on 'Doomed' possibilities between now > and the end of Book 7? > Dumbledore: Wise, noble, (grand) father figure to Harry, leads group > of people through dangerous territory (so to speak). > Has 'Watch out for the Balrog' sticker on his back.> As sad as it makes me to agree, I do. Dumbledore's age is noted several times by Harry in GoF. I also believe that Harry will have to fight Voldemort all by himself in the end, with no thoughts of Dumbledore's comfort back at Hogwarts to help him. Perhaps I see it as his true rite of passage. The other character I see as Doomed, even though he is not a major one is good old Cornelius Fudge. There is room there for some interesting plot development when someone new steps in as Minister of Magic (Lucius Malfoy? Arthur Weasley? Amos Diggory?). I'm not crazy about the job Fudge is doing now, and with his outright denial of Voldemort's return, I can see him just walking right into his own death at the hands of Voldemort or one of his faithful supporters. How much farther can JKR go with his character now that he is so clearly not supporting Dumbledore? I don't buy the Evil!Fudge idea. What about one of the Dursleys? Perhaps Aunt Petunia will finally reveal herself as a witch and get caught in the crossfire. Or Vernon's big mouth will take him a step too far. I'm not saying any of them are Doomed, but anything is possible here. I'd say the same when thinking about the Weasleys as well, but if JKR kills one of them, my money is on one of the males, not Ginny or Molly. Oh, and Hagrid is Doomed. I'm telling you all, he is going to mess up big time. It may be accidental, but it will happen. You'll see... bwahahahahaha! --jenny from ravenclaw, who will never get over it if Harry dies. Never. ******************************************** From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sun Jun 2 13:48:20 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 13:48:20 -0000 Subject: Lupin Is Not An Airhead! (WAS Remus: Once more with feeling, ) In-Reply-To: <000001c20a07$a0b39e10$55ec6bd5@quack> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39326 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "LD" wrote: > Could this be tied into the Witching Hour theory that's been flying > around in Lupin's defense lately? Maybe because it wasn't that one > certain time, the moon has no effect on him? Or perhaps Lupin had been > taking his Wolfsbane potion before the class (although I think it just > helps him to keep his mind, and doesn't stop him from transforming). > I have a different theory. The effect that the Dementors have on people is a property inherent to Dementors, so the boggart acquires it along with the hooded cloak and the scabied hands. The werewolf transformation, OTOH, is a property of the *werewolf*, not of the moon, so the boggart has nothing to do with it. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 2 14:00:14 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 14:00:14 -0000 Subject: Doomed, they're Doomed [Snape] WAS Snape is an honest nasty DISLOYAL person In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39327 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "barefootpuppets" wrote: > > Cindy writes: > > So who does Dumbledore trust enough to let his guard down? It's > > a fairly short list, I think: > > > > 1. Snape. Boy, that would be a shocker! The ultimate > > betrayal! Someone to whom Dumbledore gave a second chance, > > someone "cunning" enough to be in Slytherin, someone who knows a > > lot of dark curses, someone who knows how DEs operate. I think > > Snape is the best bet for a betrayal. And a Big one, too! > Heidi responds: > > I agree with you *but* I think this will be a planned event and not > a true betrayal. If Dumbledore would be > more than willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good. He'd > just be heading off for the next adventure, wouldn't he? > > We know that Dumbledore trusts Snape. We do not know *why* he > trusts Snape, but he does. Explicitly. > > Wouldn't it be a great plot twist for Snape to "turn on" Dumbledore > in order to get into the inner sanctum...and perhaps Harry comes to > know this happen, but Dumbledore's last words are to "trust Snape." > > OOohhhhh.... > > Heidi R. Ahhh....I like this.... So, possible 'Snape is Doomed' scenario: Snape goes back to Voldemort with an 'I hate them both' cover story. He gives Voldemore details of how to kill both Dumbledore and Harry. The Kill Dumbledore details are true; a noble self-sacrifice on Dumbledore's part to get Voldemort to believe that the Kill Harry details are not, in fact, a cunning trap. Dumbledore dies. Harry believes Snape has betrayed him. Initial Climatic scene where Harry refuses to kill a (secretly heart-broken) Snape because he's Not That Sort of Boy.[1] Final Climatic Scene where Voldemort makes a big ceremonial thing out of killing Harry [2], planning to behead him with the Gryffindor Sword. He chooses Snape, who has delivered Harry to him, for the privilege of the final blow [3]. Snape renounces Voldemore in superb scenery chewing speech, uses sword to break Harry's chains and ends by cutting off the arm that has his Death Eater mark [4]. Voldemort kills Snape in huge green blast of AK [5], followed by Harry grabbing the sword from Snape's lifeless fingers for the Final Big Fight....[6] Yes! Yes! Yes! I love it! Snape's DOOMED! He's DOOMED, I tell you, DOOMED! [Sound of insane laughter as Pip is dragged off for a nice lie down in a darkened room] [1] Besides, having Harry spare his life is much the nastier option as far as Snape's concerned. ;-) [2] He will. You know he will. [3]Sooo much better to let someone else do it. Beheading people is messy. [4] It's very symbolic. [5]'Snape must survive' fans can select a 'Harry saves the Day' (TM) option in which Harry works out how to control his AK defense mechanism, and thus manages a Last Second Rescue. This permits Snape to survive bloodied, slightly mutilated, but unbowed, and allows him the all-important Hospital ( Plot Explanation) Chapter [7] where he explains all those plot points that have been bugging readers from Books 1 to 7. [6] The entire scene can be held in a supposedly dormant volcano. If you really insist. [7] And Snape should *demand* that Hospital Plot Explanation Scene. Given a choice between A Nice Bowl of Fruit, Letting the Patient Rest, and Explaining Complex Plot Twists Over Several Pages To Semi- Comatose Invalids, the REAL witch or wizard will go for the Plot Explanation option every time. No wonder Dumbledore was so stern with Professor McGonagall in GoF.:-) Pip (who really must head off for that darkened room...) From Edblanning at aol.com Sun Jun 2 15:09:46 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 11:09:46 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape is an HONEST nasty person Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39328 Amanda: > Just to play Devil's Advocate, it is also entirely possible that Snape does > not, in fact, give a rat's ass about helping the kids out of a bad > situation, and is saying they were Confunded to lessen their role and get > them (especially Harry) out of the limelight for once. Let someone else have > it. Like Snape, say. I love this scene. It does seem very out of character for Snape to try to get them out of trouble (so there has to be some other motive for his behaviour) and he does, ever so subtly and conveying an attitude of caring solicitude, manage to suggest to Fudge that perhaps expulsion, just for their own good, you know, might be a suitable punishment, doesn't he? I certainly think he's putting every ounce into presenting himself in a good light at this point and railing against the dratted Potter and his cronies would not be politic. Fudge, IIRC, hasn't yet begun to express doubt in Harry's stability. > > Alternately, he could really believe they were Confunded, but for some > reason I really don't think he does. I don't know why that should be > so....anyone think he really believes this? Or got any justification for > either thought? Half of me thinks he's saying it to present himself as the soul of reasonability to Fudge and half of me thinks that he might really believe it, as it reflects his opinion of Sirius. Another half of me (I'm a very complex person) thinks that perhaps he is projecting what he wishes to be the case: he doesn't really believe it (as he is beginning to doubt Sirius' guilt), but would like that to be the explanation (so that he can carry on believing in it). Whatever, the effort seems to have taken a lot out of him! Although I love the explanation that the 'breakdown' was in fact an elaborate sham acted out at Dumbledore's request. Even if it was, I'm sure the emotion behind it was genuine. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jun 2 15:58:48 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 15:58:48 -0000 Subject: Snape / House Elves / Harry's Relatives / Viktor / Karkaroff Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39329 Marina Rusalka wrote about the Shrieking Shack scene: > This is Snape at his absolute worst, the closest he comes in the > books to being an out-and-out villain. To me, the most unforgiveable thing we have been shown Snape doing is in GoF, where he thwarts Harry's attempt to see Dumbledore to tell him about Crouch Sr loony in the Forest. By GoF, Snape has no excuse not to know that Harry only seeks to access Dumbledore's office when he has very good reason, something that Dumbledore would like to be informed of. In that instance, his desire to thwart Harry causes him to be acting against what Dumbledore would want. Some people will say that Dumbledore magically knows whoever is trying to get to his office and comes out if he wants to see them and that Snape was merely passing the time that Harry would have been waiting for Dumbledore to arrive anyway. I say, if Snape had helped Harry get to the office faster, perhaps they would have caught Crouch Sr before Crouch Jr got around to killing him. ladjables Ama wrote: > Freedom requires the absence of dependency upon the will of > another, and the absence of vulnerability to interference, No one who has to work for a living instead of being independently wealthy is free? > Suppose house-elves were actually a burden to these masters as > incompetent servants, do you think anyone would be even remotely > interested in preservin current elf status? The Weasleys don't try to evict the ghoul in their attic, even tho' it is nothing but a nuisance; there is something in FB indicating that many wizarding households put up with ghouls that came with the house. Gnomes in the garden are another matter. I hesitate to guess whether hypothetical incompetent house elves would be treated like ghouls or like gnomes. Ronale wrote: > At no time does the passage tell us which side of his family they > come from. (Though I presume the green-eyed people are from > mother's side.) I also presume that the green-eyed people are on his mother's side, so I am very annoyed at the book having this sentence: "The Potters smiled and waved at Harry and he stared hungrily back at them, his hands pressed flat against the glass as though he was hoping" etc That comes right after the sentence that you referred to (paragraph break in-between) about the green eyes and knobby knees. Altho' I have an opinion that apparently no one else in this list shares: the people Harry sees in the Mirror of Erised are not portraits of selected real dead relatives, they are portraits of what Harry imagines his relatives to look like (his parents look right because he has actually seen THEM, altho' not recently). Because the Mirror of Erised reads minds, not necromancy. Pippin wrote: > I feel bad for Viktor. There's a real potential for Hermione to > hurt him. Yes, except that when JKR made him nice, I became certain that she is going to kill him, quite possibly in Book 5. Cindy Sphynx wrote: > Why is it that no one crushes on Quiddich Star Victor Krum? I don't crush on him, but I believe he would be a better ship for Hermione than Harry or Ron or Ginny or Cho or Snape or Lupin or Black. > So why don't the women folk around here fall all over each other > for the chance to pluck the twigs and leaves from Karkaroff's > silver hair? Karkaroff is a slimy, sleazy, coward! I hate him more than I hate the Dursleys or Lockhart -- maybe even more than I hate Lucius Malfoy! Not that I don't pity him how *slowly* Voldemort will kill him. From ronale7 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 2 16:17:27 2002 From: ronale7 at yahoo.com (Ronale Stevens) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 09:17:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: Snape / House Elves / Harry's Relatives / Viktor / Karkaroff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020602161727.98684.qmail@web20803.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39330 --- catlady_de_los_angeles wrote: >> Ronale wrote: > >> At no time does the passage tell us which side of >> his family they >> come from. (Though I presume the green-eyed people >> are from >> mother's side.) > I also presume that the green-eyed people are on his > mother's side, > so I am very annoyed at the book having this > sentence: "The Potters > smiled and waved at Harry and he stared hungrily > back at them, his > hands pressed flat against the glass as though he > was hoping" etc > > That comes right after the sentence that you > referred to (paragraph > break in-between) about the green eyes and knobby > knees. > > Altho' I have an opinion that apparently no one else > in this list > shares: the people Harry sees in the Mirror of > Erised are not > portraits of selected real dead relatives, they are > portraits of what > Harry imagines his relatives to look like (his > parents look right > because he has actually seen THEM, altho' not > recently). Because the > Mirror of Erised reads minds, not necromancy. > You could well be right. But I interpreted the words "The Potters" to refer to James and Lily, just as I would interpret the words "The Stevenses" to mean my husband and myself, not our uncles, aunts, cousins, etc. Maybe I'm more egocentric than I realized. But once again Rowlings words are open to so many interpretations that no satisfactory conclusion can be reached--yet. She, as well as the mirror, are playing mind games. --Ronale7 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From ronale7 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 2 16:34:56 2002 From: ronale7 at yahoo.com (Ronale Stevens) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 09:34:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Mirror of Erised, Harry's Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020602163456.65965.qmail@web20802.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39331 --- laxrissa26 wrote: > > But then Tom Riddle would have to be James' or > Lily's father, and > that just dosen't seem likely. Voldemort is said to > be the last > remaining descendent of Slytherin, but Harry is > proven not to be the > heir in CoS. That along with your logistics of him > not being old > enough > suggests that he isn't...but then again, we never > really know what's > possible in HP. > -Marisa > > > Tom Riddle was 16 years old fifty years ago in COS. The Lexicon puts his birth in 1927. He's definitely old enough to be James's father and Harry's grandad. In fact, he's just the right age. It's Dumbledore who says Voldemort is the last remaining descendant of Slytherin. But Dumbledore may not know that Riddle had a son. For that matter neither James nor Voldemort may know it. Till I get more conclusive evidence on the matter, I will believe in the kinship. My reasons for believing it I wrote in a message on the "fatal child" theory. If you've the time or inclincation, read through my message 38784. --Ronale7 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From aiz24 at hotmail.com Sun Jun 2 17:58:42 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (lupinesque) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 17:58:42 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Chat today Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39332 Hi all, If you'd like to chat with your brother- and sister-HPfGUers, come on down to the chatroom: www.hpfgu.org.uk/chat. It begins at 7 Greenwich Mean Time, that is, 90 seconds ago. Amygeist From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Jun 2 23:17:25 2002 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 2 Jun 2002 23:17:25 -0000 Subject: File - VFAQ.html Message-ID: <1023059845.144144643.62585.m12@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39333 An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From divaclv at aol.com Sun Jun 2 20:42:28 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 20:42:28 -0000 Subject: Comparing "house-elfment" to slavery (Part 2) (not-so-long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39334 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: (much snippage) > The Atan parallelism > -------------------- > > **Note: this is the weakest of my arguments, based on any number of > shacky arguments, and included, after much self-debate, because, > nonetheless, I'd like it to be true and because it's the only one with > an acronym: ENSLAVEMENT (Elves Need Slavery Lest Aggression and > Violence Erupt, Making Extinction Near Threat)** I don't know, I think you have a very viable theory with this one (most of the theories listed in this debate have been, though). I hadn't drawn the Atan parallel (it's been years since I read Eddings), but the idea sounds interesting and feasable. (Snipping of Domes of Fire citation etc.) > This situation reflects my fourth view on the Pottervese elves: they > realized that they had too much power (and I do mean too much: they > apparate in Hogwarts, need no wand, throw wizards down stairs with > thought alone, etc.) and put themselves into slavery because they > couldn't stop themselves from killing each other (or iniciating a war > with another species). Of course, this is based on a piece of canon we > do not have: the origins of the elves's enslavement. But since we do NOT yet have this piece of information, I say all speculation on the elves' enslavement (and the moral implications thereof) is fair game. Much has been said about how the oppression of the elves might tie into the overall theme of tollerance. I would like to add that one of the hardest forms of tolerance to learn that of belief systems fundamentally different from one's own. Who has to learn the lesson here: the house-elves, in demanding freedom and recognition, or Hermione, in realizing that the house-elf perception of servitude is different than what she feels it should be? Is Dobby rebelling against an oppressive regime, or against his own culture? Time, and JK Rowling, alone can tell. ~Christi, who is also not pro-slavery but believes there are multiple possibilities on this question and is throwing a bit of devil's advocate into the mix. From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 2 23:58:38 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 23:58:38 -0000 Subject: Snape / House Elves / Harry's Relatives / Viktor / Karkaroff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39335 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > Marina Rusalka wrote about the Shrieking Shack scene: > > > This is Snape at his absolute worst, the closest he comes in the > > books to being an out-and-out villain. > Catlady replied: > To me, the most unforgiveable thing we have been shown Snape doing > is in GoF, where he thwarts Harry's attempt to see Dumbledore to > tell him about Crouch Sr loony in the Forest. By GoF, Snape has no > excuse not to know that Harry only seeks to access Dumbledore's > office when he has very good reason, something that Dumbledore > would like to be informed of. In that instance, his desire to > thwart Harry causes him to be acting against what Dumbledore would > want. Some people will say that Dumbledore magically knows whoever > is trying to get to his office and comes out if he wants to see > them and that Snape was merely passing the time that Harry would > have been waiting for Dumbledore to arrive anyway. I say, if Snape > had helped Harry get to the office faster, perhaps they would have >caught Crouch Sr before Crouch Jr got around to killing him. > Crouch Jr got around to killing him. Looking at this from the viewpoint of the 'Undercover!Snape' theory (Post # 39273 ) there are some interesting pointers in this scene. First: Snape is coming *out* of Dumbledore's office. Why is a Housemaster in the Headmaster's office at 9:30 at night? (Perhaps because Potter and Krum haven't returned with the others from the TriWizard Cup Briefing?) He should be preparing to check that his students are all in bed. A non-urgent meeting would be held after lights out, when Snape will have some free time. Second: Since Snape is coming out of Dumbledore's office, he is in a perfect position to know if Dumbledore is coming down the stairs behind him. Which is implied by the very short period of supposed 'obstruction' before Dumbledore appears (less than half a page of dialogue - should run 30 seconds to a minute at most). Third: (And most important) Snape DOESN'T delay Harry. Harry has failed to get into Dumbledore's office and decided to look for Dumbledore in the staff room. He is running there when Snape CALLS HIM BACK. And then spends 30 seconds or so establishing that he wasn't trying to be helpful, honest, look he's being ever so obstructive. Again, *if* he knows Dumbledore is right behind him then Snape has wasted a few seconds at most. If it is vital that Harry is convinced Snape hates him, then he hasn't 'wasted' any time at all - he's simply spent a few seconds making sure he hasn't blown his cover by calling Harry back. It's Harry who later moans that 'if only Snape hadn't delayed him', completely forgetting that if he'd checked the staff room as planned the delay would have been a lot longer. Pip From dicentra at xmission.com Mon Jun 3 00:37:22 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 00:37:22 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39336 It's late, and the coolness of the Bay's waters is now the coolness of the air. Dicentra, stiff and achy from scrubbing the deck of the Big Bang, slips into the water and dog-paddles to shore. Hey, if Padfoot can do it from Azkaban, she thinks, I can do this little stretch. Dripping and cold, she stumbles toward the museum and, finding its doors unlocked, enters and makes her way to the third floor dioramas, leaving a trail of water and sand as she goes. She stops again at the diorama called "Shrieking Shack." The lights are dimmed but she can still see Sirius Black and Ron. Sirius has that waxy skin, yellow teeth, and insane rictus going. Dirty black hair. Yeech. Good thing he cleans up good. Dicentra sits cross-legged in front of the diorama like Harry in front of Erised. She has been obsessed with something ever since she dragged Pip in here. It was that bit about what Sirius's main flaw was. Pip insists it's cowardice (to which Dicentra gives *no* heed), but Dicentra herself declared that it was overconfidence in his own abilities. But is that really it? Dicentra had worked herself into a froth over the "cowardice" comment and may not have been thinking so clearly. After all, Sirius has been accused of having many flaws: arrogance, immaturity, promiscuity, hot-headedness... but none of them really sit right, not as your typical fatal flaw, anyway. Not as That Which Always Makes Him Screw Up. Besides, some of those accusations have zero basis in canon (promiscuity), and others are assumed because of the Prank (immaturity, hot-headedness). Dicentra thinks perhaps the best clues lie in a pattern of behavior that has actually been laid down in canon. We know so little about Sirius, really, but we do know this: He's a dog. Yep, a dog. And on this list it's pretty well established that Sirius's primary virtue is loyalty, such as you would find with a dog. And as is common with human beings, our virtues are often tied in closely with our flaws; at times our virtues *are* our flaws, when untempered by other virtues. Isn't it possible that Sirius is loyal to a fault, so to speak? Is he so determined to be loyal to his "pack" that his single-minded attempts to protect the ones he loves inevitably turn out badly? But how could protecting someone be a flaw? Easy: when you take it upon yourself to single-handedly effect that protection. Dicentra rolls the wheel of the diorama to the place right before Snape throws off the Invisibility Cloak. Lupin is explaining that Sirius had played a trick on Snape while they were in school. She presses the button and the sound comes on: "It served him right," [Sirius] sneered. "Sneaking around, trying to find out what we were up to... hoping he could get us expelled...." Dicentra pushes the button and the scene freezes. There has been plenty of speculation as to what Snape could have done to Sirius to piss him off that badly. Were they rivals for a witch's attention? Maybe, but there's no canon to support it. The "we" and the "us" in Sirius's comment are clue enough: Snape was threatening his pack. So what does Sirius do? He takes it upon himself to teach Snape a lesson. We know he didn't tell James what he planned, and it appears he didn't tell Lupin (who cares about Peter). So it was just he himself, Sirius the Protector, who went off by himself; disaster was averted only because James found out in time (did Peter run and tell him?). If he had consulted with the others, they probably would have thought up a far more satisfying and less dangerous way to deal with Snape. Skip to a few years later, when Voldemort targets the Potters. Again, Sirius comes up with his own plan, ignoring Dumbledore's offer to keep the secret. Turning the wheel again, to the part where Harry accuses Sirius of betraying his parents: "Harry... I as good as killed them," [Sirius] croaked. "I persuaded Lily and James to change to Peter at the last moment, persuaded them to use him as Secret-Keeper instead of me.... I'm to blame, I know it...." Freeze again. Sirius takes all the blame because he recognizes it was *his* and only his plan to save them. And it would have worked, too, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids... er... if Peter hadn't been a traitor. Sirius should have known there was a 50/50 chance that Peter was the mole, but no, he was sold on *his* idea. Dicentra's throat tightens. She doesn't like ferreting out Sirius's flaws like this. Sirius *was* genuinely stupid to trust Peter instead of Remus, but he just *had* to Be The Lone Protector. Couldn't let someone else do it for once. Fast-forward again to just past Pettigrew's appearance. There's a foggy little sub-diorama going on as Sirius narrates the events of the summer of 1993. In Azkaban, we see Sirius as he reads the article about the Weasleys, sees Scabbers aka Wormtail and that he's in a position to hurt Harry. Sirius says: "It was as if someone had lit a fire in my head, and the dementors couldn't destroy it.... It wasn't a happy feeling...it was an obsession...but it gave me strength, it cleared my mind." Once again, seeing a member of his pack threatened, Sirius takes it upon himself to save Harry. Being able to reprise the Lone Protector role put life back into him. There has been commentary on this list wondering why Sirius didn't just send Dumbledore an owl upon arriving on the mainland: "Dear Sir. The Weasley kid's rat is Peter Pettigrew. Yours sincerely, Sirius Black." Or why he didn't contact Remus. Or... Well, besides the fact that it would have made an Awfully Short Novel (WARPDRIVE!), Sirius didn't contact anyone because that's not how Sirius operates. Other examples of Sirius Going It Alone: trying to assume the sole care of Harry after the Potters were murdered, breaking into the castle to get Peter (he *did* try to include someone else in his plans, but that didn't work, did it?), trying to finish Peter off by himself, and taking on Werewolf!Remus after he transformed (but he didn't have much choice in that case). He's Lone Protector, and he doesn't need anyone else. Or at least, that *was* his modus operandi. The next time Harry is in trouble (GoF), we don't see Sirius trying to Go It Alone: he's been corresponding with Dumbledore, and he's been taking Dumbledore's insructions (where to find a cave to hide, etc.). No striking out on his own. No heroics. And no screw-ups. Let's hope he's recognized that he can't Protect The Pack on his own, and that we don't see him reverting to Lone Protector in OoP and the rest. Now, *why* did think he had to Go It Alone? Dicentra stands and swats the sand off her legs as she heads back to the Big Bang. That will have to be another night... --Dicentra, who's glad *one* of the Potterverse heartthrobs is getting his act together From rebelslgb at aol.com Mon Jun 3 00:49:20 2002 From: rebelslgb at aol.com (sage016) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 00:49:20 -0000 Subject: Snape is an honest nasty DISLOYAL person (who will betray Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: <82CC50FF-75E3-11D6-8FDE-0003937E162E@mac.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39337 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., awc2 wrote: > On Saturday, June 1, 2002, at 07:22 PM, Irene Mikhlin wrote: > > >> 1. Snape. Boy, that would be a shocker! > > > > But would it? I think lots of readers are not convinced > > he is on the right side at all. And the younger readers hate > > his guts, I would guess. > > It might work two ways. In one way, it isn't a shocker at all. We've been set up and set up to mistrust Snape only to have him turn out to be doing something legitimate at the end. On the micro level, it would be consistent to lull the reader into assuming that Snape's actions--specifically malicious as they might be--are motivated by a 'goodness' that will be later revealed then pull that carpet out. On the other hand, if you zoom out further, it doesn't seem unreasonable that that's just too obvious. All the anti-Snape people would just shrug and say "see?" and that certainly isn't any fun. Any role Snape has in the ultimate downfall of any of our heroes would certainly be more elaborate than a "told you so" engendering sleight of plot. (At least, I hope so.) > > -awc Hi...i havent posted here in about a year...but here it goes.. I think Snape WILL die. How can he not? He used to be on Voldemort's side, but now he is pretty loyal, from what i can tell, to Dumbledore. One of two things (i think) is going to happen with Snape #1 he is goig to turn his loyalty back to Voldemort, and maybe then he WILL live. or #2 he will stick wth Dumbledore, but that will piss off Voldemort for sure. I believe (dont have my books with me) in GOF Voldemort said those who havent returned to him will pay... so i think snape will die eventually...which is a shame, i do like his character. kristen From pennylin at swbell.net Mon Jun 3 01:54:18 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 20:54:18 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Comforting!Ron, Lying!Harry References: Message-ID: <02a801c20aa1$92adc7b0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 39338 Hi -- I originally said: Penny wrote: >Figuring out that Harry might want to play Quidditch was just an > >instinctive guess based probably on Ron's desire to let off some steam > >in a physical way. I think we're meant to know that Hermione doesn't > >get it; this is underlining that males react to stress differently >than >females. Big surprise. :--) Mind you, this doesn't make it any >less >what Harry needed at that moment, but I'm not sure I'd term Ron's >action >as "comfort" per se. Amy Z responded with: <<>>> Wait! Wait! You misunderstand me. :--) I didn't mean to say that Ron *just* wants to play Quidditch himself. No. This is not a "Ron is self-centered" argument at all. What I mean is that because Ron wants to play Quidditch to let off steam, he intuits that Harry would also want to react to the stress in this way. Ron's right. That is *exactly* what Harry needed, and Hermione's reaction is actually quite humorous. I always giggle that she mutters "Boys!" under her breath as she heads off to sleep. But, I'm not sure Ron's action fits into *my* subjective, nay sexist, definition of "comfort." That's *all* I wanted to say with that piece. I rather think I'm with Hermione on this one is all. Boys! :--) Amy Z goes on to bolster my continuing efforts to convince the HP World that Ron and Hermione are equal best friends in Harry's eyes -- Me: >He sort of lied by omission to them both though, didn't he?>>> Amy: <<>>>>> Okay, so I forgot about the Egg. :--) Yes, he lied to her once then. Any evidence that he lied to Ron too? Hmm... maybe Ron was his usual lackadaisical self & didn't inquire about Harry's efforts with the Egg. Anyway .... yes, I agree wholeheartedly that he's been no less forthcoming with Hermione than with Ron. I mean to say: if the only evidence that he cares for Ron more is the off-hand remark about spending more time in the library when Hermione was your best friend ... well. Harumph. Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it with me. I think I need an acronym for this position, Tabouli. Are you reading? No, wait, Tabouli is travelling. Any other acronym-generators? So far, all I know is that Amy Z and I are both members of the "Ron and Hermione are Equal Best Friends to Harry" club. We need an acronym all the same though I say. Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at comcast.net Mon Jun 3 02:13:14 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 02:13:14 -0000 Subject: Snape and the Confunded Trio (WAS Snape is an HONEST nasty person) In-Reply-To: <004101c209eb$01b68aa0$257763d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39339 AmandaGeist wrote: > Alternately, he could really believe they were Confunded, but for >some reason I really don't think he does. I don't know why that >should be so....anyone think he really believes this? Or got any >justification for either thought? As much as it pains me to give credit to Snape, I believe that Snape is being truthful with Fudge at the end of PoA. Snape really does believe the kids have been Confunded. He is not trying to keep them out of trouble, IMHO, and he is not willing to lie go get them into trouble beyond what they deserve. That is so honorable that it makes me want to scream! The sequence of events is that Snape comes into the Shrieking Shack under the cloak, and he hears Lupin explaining his werewolf days and hears that his old enemies are animagi. Later, he tells Fudge that the trio has been Confunded. But why doesn't Snape later tell Fudge that Sirius is some sort of Animagus (although Snape doesn't learn what type)? This would be very helpful to Fudge -- Order of Merlin-type stuff, perhaps? The reason, I think, is simply that Snape does not believe a word of what he hears. He thinks Lupin and Sirius are confunding the kids, so the whole wild werewolf days/animagus story is a hoax. I mean, it sure *looks* like a Confunding-In-Progress, doesn't it? Despite being in the presence of a dangerous convicted murder, the kids are listening intently to Lupin rather than struggling or fighting to escape. Thus, the fact that Snape is surprised in GoF that Sirius really is an animagus makes perfect sense -- he never believed it in the first place. Besides, if Snape is willing to believe that Sirius is an animagus, then he also has to accept that Peter is an animagus. This supports Sirius' story, and Snape would *never* want to believe anything that might prove that Sirius is telling the truth and does not deserve to part with his soul. Also, Snape has never managed the animagus transformation (so far as we know). He loathes the Marauders, and James in particular. He would much prefer to believe that James didn't manage something *that* impressive (on top of being bright, popular and athletic). Now, if Snape were thinking straight, he'd have realized that James' ability to transform into a stag meant that James really *didn't* risk his life saving Snape to the extent Snape has always imagined. It might even wipe out Snape's life debt to James on a technicality. But who said Snape can think straight? ;-) Cindy From huntleyl at mssm.org Sun Jun 2 03:13:12 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 23:13:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] TBAY: Evil! Ron imagery References: Message-ID: <000001c20aa6$5b72e320$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 39340 Heidi R. mentioned: >There had been some discussion in weeks past regarding a certain >scene from GoF where Ron and Harry are dueling with fake wands. One >was a parrot (Ron) and the other was a fish (Harry). The parrot >decapitates the fish. OH!! OH!! and Cindy said: >Ah, but the text seems to provide quite a number of clues. There is >the bizarre description of "Norwegian Ridgeback" in Fantastic >Beasts: "It has been known to attack most kinds of large land >mammal and, unusually for a dragon, the Ridgeback will also feed on >water-dwelling creatures. An unsubstantiated report alleges that a >Ridgeback carried off a whale calf off the coast of Norway in 1802." Both cases of a air-dwelling creature killing a sea-dwelling creature... very strange... hmm.. Actually, I forgot where I was going with this...it's late. Anyway, anyone have any ideas of what to make of this? laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at comcast.net Mon Jun 3 02:43:36 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 02:43:36 -0000 Subject: The Bewitching Hour & The Boggart Moon (WAS Lupin Is Not An Airhead!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39341 Katze wrote: > As a Lupin fan, I'll settle for Mahoney's theory ... although I >agree with Pip, that somewhere in all the yelling in the Shrieking >Shack perhaps a little alarm bell should've gone off In Lupin's >head ... Yes, this is a problem for all of the "Why did Lupin fail to take his potion that night?" theories. If he is just forgetful, you'd think that the word "werewolf" would jog his memory just a bit. If he has done some sort of complex calculation, you'd think he'd come up with a better plan for handling things that night (have Sirius escort Peter to the castle and stay in the Shack, etc.) than the one he came up with, or would show some sense of urgency. Now, I'll agree that Pip's theory solves the problem. If you decide that Lupin is in denial about being a werewolf, then you're in fine shape. Lupin, however, has to be totally and completely *bent* to be in denial about something like this. I mean, Hermione shrieks, "He's a werewolf!" and Lupin doesn't deny this or react at all. He knows full well that he is a werewolf, and he has no mental problem that prevents him from having a grasp on this. So then. Why does Lupin fail to take his potion, and why doesn't all the werewolf talk in the Shack snap him out of it and cause him to take steps to protect the others? Um. I'm thinking that this Bewitching Hour calculation that Lupin does before he runs out that night is very, very complex. It depends on the phases of the moon. And the time. And whenever Lupin last took his potion. And on how healthy he is feeling. As a result, Lupin can only pinpoint a *range* when the transformation will happen. So why doesn't he hurry things along in the Shack? Because Lupin, bless him, was *way* off on this one. He figured he had *hours* left. He saw no reason to hurry, particularly since hurrying was going to speed up the execution of a dear friend and increase the chances of a blunder. No, Lupin was being methodical because he thought he had time to be methodical. *********** Marina wrote (about why Lupin doesn't transform at the boggart moon): >The effect that the Dementors have on > people is a property inherent to Dementors, so the boggart >acquires it along with the hooded cloak and the scabied hands. The >werewolf transformation, OTOH, is a property of the *werewolf*, not >of the moon, so the boggart has nothing to do with it. I'm not sure this takes us all the way there. What is the *reason* Lupin transforms involuntarily? It has to do either with the objective power of the moon, or the subjective, internal feelings Lupin has when he sees it, right? I've never been taken with the idea that Lupin's transformation is entirely a subjective reaction to the moon. If that were it, then he could be kept indoors or simply stunned when it is time for the full moon, I'd say. Lupin ought to have the same subjective reaction to the boggart moon as he does to the real one. And of course, if the transformation is triggered by the objective power of the moon, then Lupin should transform when the moon comes up, not when the cloud cover breaks. As for the boggart moon, I think the boggart does have some of the powers of the thing it is impersonating. The clearest (and maybe only) example is when the boggart dims the lights when Lupin and Harry are learning the Patronus charm: "The lamps around the classroom flickered and went out." This was definitely not an illusion: "He took a bit of the chocolate and watched Lupin extinguishing the lamps that had rekindled with the disappearance of the dementor." This suggests to me that the boggart/dementor really did dim the lights in the classroom. Real dementors seem to have the power to extinguish lights, as the lights on the Hogwarts Express go out when the dementors arrive. I think boggarts really do take on some of the characteristics of the thing they are imitating. Things get even more complicated when we look at the boggart/dementor in the maze in GoF. Harry first believes it is a dementor, so he conjures a Patronus. What does the boggart do? It falls back and retreats, just like a real dementor would. But Lupin told us that Ridikkulus is the spell for fighting a boggart, not Expecto Patronum. A boggart shouldn't be bothered at all by a Patronus; it ought to keep right on coming, shouldn't it? So now we have some evidence that boggarts take on the powers of the thing they impersonate (dimming lights), and we see that they react in the same way as the thing they impersonate (retreating when confronted by a Patronus). But then again, the maze boggart doesn't become a perfect version of the dementor, does it? No, because it trips, and dementors don't trip. So that suggests that the boggart has some of the powers of the thing it becomes, but it doesn't become a perfect replica. It gets some details or characteristics wrong. (This is consistent with Lupin explaining to the students that he has seen boggarts get confused and become half a slug.) As applied to Lupin, then, the reason Lupin doesn't transform when confronted by a boggart moon might have nothing to do with how he feels, whether he is especially talented or experienced, whether he has fear, or whether he drank his potion recently. It could be simply that the boggart is doing its very best impersonation of the moon but hasn't got the details right, just like its counterpart in the maze. Cindy (unsure of how all of this fits into the Bewitching Hour theory) From catlady at wicca.net Mon Jun 3 03:15:14 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 03:15:14 -0000 Subject: grandpa Riddle / Snape / A LOT OF BASELESS SPECULATION about The Prank Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39342 Ronale wrote: > Tom Riddle was 16 years old fifty years ago in COS. The Lexicon > puts his birth in 1927. He's definitely old enough to be James's > father and Harry's grandad. In fact, he's just the right age.. I don't believe that Riddle was James Potter's father because it is Such a Big Deal and James and Harry are Potters, and I don't believe that Riddle was James's mother because sex-change doesn't seem to have been one of his habits. I could believe that he is James's mother's father and James inherited his looks from his mother, if you can make the dates fit. Let's see. If he was born in 1927, he could have fathered a child born in 1947 (it is not altogether necessary that he was married to the mother or that the child was planned), who... would have been 12 in 1960, and only 10 if James was born in 1957 like I think. No. Pip wrote: > He should be preparing to check that his students are all in bed. I believe that the prefects do that, not the House Masters. This has been an irrelevant nitpick. > Third: (And most important) Snape DOESN'T delay Harry. Harry has > failed to get into Dumbledore's office and decided to look for > Dumbledore in the staff room. He is running there when Snape CALLS > HIM BACK. And then spends 30 seconds or so establishing that he > wasn't trying to be helpful, honest, look he's being ever so > obstructive. Finally! A plausible argument that Snape wasn't just being a total git! > breaking into the castle to get Peter (he *did* try to include > someone else in his plans, but that didn't work, did it?), He DID try to get someone else to help with Scabbers? Do you mean Crookshanks? A lot of the broken potsherds of what went on with Sirius and Severus and James and Remus could be fitted into a consistent pattern if one could believe that if young Severus was going to involuntarily fall into love/lust/infatuation with one of his hated Gryffindor enemies, it could be quiet Remus rather than handsome Sirius or popular James. Of course, everyone would be in deep denial about this very socially unacceptable (both same-sex and different-gang) feeling... granted that Severus and Sirius likely had hated each other since the first moment they met on the Hogwarts Express and that Severus hated both James and Sirius for getting marginally better grades than him and being popular, still rather than sneaking around after the Marauders trying to get them expelled, he was sneaking around after Remus for reasons quite unclear to himself, not clear whether he thought Remus was being victimised in some scheme to get those prettyboy jocks their good marks and would be grateful to be rescued by heroic Severus, or whether he was trying to prove to himself that Remus was just as bad as the othr Gryffindors. Of course, his love-object hanging out with his enemies would give him one more thing to be jealous about. Sirius observing his enemy spying on his friend would naturally assume the worst and get Loyally Protective as in your explanation of his character, but Sirius's motives would also be complicated by emotions that he was careful not to be aware of, perhaps ordinary sexual jealously of another male sniffing around after *his* piece of tail, or maybe a vague awareness of sexual undertones leading the idea that Severus was trying to *rape* Remus to temporarily bubble up into his conscious mind... PEOPLE WHO DELIBERATELY AVOID READING FANFIC LEST IT CORRUPT YOUR PURITY OF VISION, STOP READING THIS POST *H*E*R*E* !!!!! Cindy Sphynx wrote: > Now, if Snape were thinking straight, he'd have realized that James ability to transform into a stag meant that James really *didn't* risk his life saving Snape to the extent Snape has always imagined. It might even wipe out Snape's life debt to James on a technicality. The way I think that stuff happened, knowing that James hadn't risked his life as much as Severus had thought would make Severus hate James even more. I envision a scene in which James, running fall out (on uneven footing, with head down for low ceiling) catches up with Severus before Severus gets to the Shack and tells Severus to go back to Hogwarts, fast, because this is dangerous! At first they have an argument in which Severus insists that James is only lying to him about the danger in an attempt to keep some secret. James, thinking he hears low sounds of growling and scratching up the tunnel, gets desperate to tell Severus that it is a monster that is kept in the tunnel and its patrol time is about to start. Severus sneers that if that were true, James would also be in danger, and offers to fight with him ("I can endanger you, if you like danger so much"). The growling gets louder... The growling gets louder, James gets more frantic, and declares that he is safe because he can jump into a special safe niche, which Severus can't. The growling changes to wild howling. Severus gets nervous but tries to conceal suvch cowardice as he proclaims that James is lying. There are sounds of wood (a door that blocks the tunnel entrance to the Shack) being bashed up and shredded. James is desperate, but realizes that Severus won't believe him even if he swears on his word of honor. His last-ditch effort is: he throws his wand down and his hands up (to show his sincerity) and says intensely: "Please. I beg you. Please get the hell out of here!" Sounds of torn wood shattering and a particularly terrifying howl as a bit of light appears in the end of the tunnel, and Severus breaks. He believes he sees the werewolf's eyes glowing evilly, approaching. He turns and runs. James, breathing a prayer of gratitude to whatever god or luck he believes in, transforms into stag form and lowers his antlered head to fight Moony to hold him off long enough for Severus to escape ... Prongs has a fighting chance against the werewolf, better chance than a human would, but his own survival is by no means a sure thing. Severus, on emerging from under the Whomping Willow, calms enough to realize that he ran away from danger, cowardice of which to be ashamed, and, worse yet, his enemy didn't run away (was braver), and worst of all, his enemy SAW this disgrace. He feels utterly humiliated, and furious, needing vengeance on the people who caused this humiliation. He feels even worse when he thinks it was a plot to humiliate him than when he thinks it was a much more respectable plot to murder him. When he realises that he was beating himself up about James being braver than him, but in fact James was not braver, just knew he was in less danger, then he will feel utterly furious at them for tricking him into feeling even more humiliated than was actually necessary. It might be a clever Slytherin strategy to lure the stupid Gryffindor into the monster's den by pretending to need to be rescued, then knocking out the Gryffindor and leaving him for the monster to eat, and escaping safely while the monster is distracted by eating the Gryffindor. But to actually NEED to be be rescued, and to actually FEEL AFRAID, and to INVOLUNTARILY behave contrary all to that his Livian Rome style warrior culture believes is right and manly... that's shameful, not clever. Who said, poor Slytherins, assigned to a House all of whose characteristics are scorned by their culture? From huntleyl at mssm.org Mon Jun 3 03:29:51 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 23:29:51 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hurt-Comfort and reader crushes References: Message-ID: <003401c20aae$ebec14a0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 39343 I said: > <<And the other two aren't? What's Hermione playing at with Viktor >anyway? Is anybody really comfortable about her being in a >relationship with a seventeen year old boy? Well, *I'm* comfortable...honestly, never been in a relationship of that nature before, but several of my friends were..back in the day. The relationships I've seen between 14/15 year old friends and their 17/18 year old boyfriends (or girlfriends, actually) seem no more unhealthy than any other adolescent relationships I've seen. Esp. in Hermione's case -- she's very mature for her age, and she seems to have a good grasp on what she *doesn't* want.. I only feel sorry for Vicky, because Hermione doesn't seem very emotionally invested in him at this point, which isn't her fault per se...she's young -- it's probably a good thing that her first boyfriend-ish type wasn't someone she was crazily in love with -- I've seen alot of people suffer from that... but she's going to break his heart..poor boy. And Harry has just >barely managed to decide that it's okay to feel good when you >see a pretty girl in the distance. Very typical for kids his age, actually. It's a new feeling for him, why shouldn't make him a little uncomfortable? I worry more about the kids who jump into the whole I-love-the-opposite-sex thing gung-ho. >Okay, you can substitute "jaded and cynical" taste instead >From my "mother of one grown and one teenaged male" perspective, there are few male characters besides >Dumbledore who don't have some growing up to do. I'd say >Hagrid and Sirius are close by the end of GoF. Lupin is just too >good to be true. Yes, he's a fabulous teacher, and in that light it's >very telling that Dumbledore doesn't try to persuade him to stay >on. I don't think Lupin's a hopeless case, mind you, but I do think >he let Harry down, and that realization, just possibly, might be a >catalyst for change. ...A little confused about what this has to do with Ron, actually.. >He invites Harry to play Quidditch when Harry is on edge about >Sirius in Chapter 10, GoF. That was a very sensitive thing to do >(pace Hermione). We know that's what helps Harry when he's >anxious: "Quite apart from wanting to win, Harry found he had >fewer nightmares when he was tired out after training." PS/SS. >*Hermione* wants to go to bed, which is understandable, but >Harry is full of adrenaline. He has a physical need to burn it off, >and Hermione just doesn't get it. *big grin*.... *coughs* Actually, this touches on something I've been thinking about for awhile now..(no, not sex, silly *slaps wrist*) While usually Harry's tendency to "exorcize his demons" through physical activity is fairly healthy -- in this example it seems to be more of a case of him trying to "hide" from the issues that he is going to have to face up to sooner or later. It seems to me that Ron tends to affirm the emotions/behaviors that come naturally to the "weaker" Harry. He's more the type of friends that tells you what you *want* to hear -- as opposed to what you *need* to hear (Hermione). He doesn't ever ask much from Harry -- esp. in situations where Harry really *needs* a push in the right direction...and IMO, this tends to do more harm than good in the long run...on the other hand, of course...sometimes it *is* necessary to "run away" for awhile from the hard parts of life -- sometimes you have to quit being strong for a bit in order to survive.. Really, people generally need friends of both the Ron *and* the Hermione variety -- someone to make you feel okay about your faults and someone to push you towards your better self. But this isn't, to me, a scene where Ron is being "comforting"..merely another example of his tendency to let Harry get away with being less-than-strong/honest/etc. >The walk around the lake was a good thing as far as persuading >Harry to write to Sirius and helping him dodge the crowd. On the >other hand, I don't know that Hermione helped any by sticking >her oar into the Ron/Harry dispute. If she hadn't given Harry a >handy explanation for Ron's behavior, he might have been >motivated to find out first-hand what was on Ron's mind and they >could've settled their differences a lot sooner. And you think Ron would have told him? Very OOC, in my opinion. Honestly, I don't think Herm made much of a difference either way...the boys were determined to be in a fight and that was that. No, Harry would have just gotten progressively more confused, hurt, and angry...While Ron would have felt the same way -- wondering why Harry couldn't tell/didn't care what was wrong. And besides, what was she supposed to do? Pretend she didn't notice? Notice how she refused to get too involved, either. "You can tell him yourself." >In the event, though I will admit Hermione made an effort, I don't >see it as particularly comforting. Afterwards, Harry feels "a large >weight of anxiety" and doesn't know what to do about it. *raises an eyebrow* being comforting isn't about "making it all go away"...It would have been very unbelievable, IMO, if Harry had suddenly felt worlds better after speaking with Hermione..I mean, one of his best friends *is* still violently not speaking to him. Hermione did an excellent job here, IMO..she offered total support to Harry *without* withdrawing any support for Ron...See?? She balanced giving Harry what he *wanted* from her with what he *needed* from her. Good girl. >I think Hermione is a wonderful girl but she's not just about >perfect ^_~ oh, of course she isn't...I may *joke* that she's "wonder woman" and such, but, honestly, I know she definitely has her faults...anyway, who wants to read about perfect people? How blah. >Sometimes, IMO, Hermione is just as clueless as Ron when it >comes to taking the emotional temperature. As a rallying cry, >"You've got just as much right as wizards to be unhappy!" leaves >something to be desired, don't you think? But they *do*!!! The right to be unhappy is a big thing, in my opinion..the worst part of the elves' enslavement is, IMO, the fact that most of them seem unable to express emotions that aren't okayed by their masters... >Why? Ron seems pretty much at peace with himself by the end >of GoF. He's made a decision to let go of his grudge against >Viktor, as shown by asking for the autograph. Canon says he "looked as though he was suffering some sort of painful internal struggle." Apparently, his fan-adoration for a sports star won out over his jealousy..but that doesn't count as particularly "at peace" to me. Plus, it doesn't beginning to make up the whole thing with the Krum doll for me...that part always made me feel *very* uneasy.. >He doesn't tease Hermione about Viktor wanting a "vord". No, but he does urge Hermione to be quick about it, and tries to keep a close eye on her. Not over his jealousy, after all -- personally, I think it was the events with V and Cedric that finally shocked all that petty viciousness out of him. Good thing too. He was starting to scare me. >He manages a conversation and a handshake with Fleur >without turning purple and staring. I don't think JKR meant to make him seem any less affected by Fleur in this scene, actually. She has him complimenting the girl in a "strangled voice"...still the gawping teenage boy, IMO... >All his concern on the trip home is for Harry, >Hermione and his brothers. He doesn't express any envy of >Harry for winning the Tri-wizard gold that I can recall. I just don't >see this seething bundle of adolescent resentment--if anybody >embodies that, it's Draco. You're right..again, I think the events after the 3rd task sort of gave him a good kick in the shins, if you know what I mean. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ahketsi at aol.com Mon Jun 3 03:21:03 2002 From: Ahketsi at aol.com (Ahketsi at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 23:21:03 EDT Subject: Lupin Is Not An Airhead! (WAS Remus: Once more with f... Message-ID: <13f.f3d98b1.2a2c3a9f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39344 In a message dated 5/31/2002 4:17:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cindysphynx at comcast.net writes: > What's this? Another spirited attack on Lupin premised on the idea > that Lupin is forgetful and deserved to lose the only paid work he > has been able to find? Based on the assumption that Remus, that > Knucklehead, just forgot to take his potion that night? He's so > darn forgetful that he is an out-and-out menace to the entire > Hogwarts student body, so Snape's revealing Remus' secret was the > best way to protect all of those helpless students? > I absolutely, 100% agree! Cindy also says: > The only one who says that Lupin forgot his potion is *Snape*, who > says, "You forgot to take your potion tonight." > > Now, is there any good reason to believe Snape here? How would > Snape know *why* Lupin didn't take his potion? Indeed, Snape hates > Lupin, so Snape could be expected to describe Lupin's failure in the > most insulting way possible. Snape is just assuming the worst about > Lupin -- as usual. > Hmmm, okay, this is the part that I have a problem with. The truth is, I'm sure people have already responded to this post, but I haven't read any of it, and probably wont since I haven't been able to read my e-mail and I'm not exactly overflowing with free time here. Anyway,it just seems to me that, the first part was good, definitely, but this second part just leaves your attackers free to ignore the good stuff at the top and critisize this bottom scenario here. The truth is, it's likely that Lupin forgot his potion, and it seems to me that running off to help Sirius and Harry & co, even though he hasn't taken his potion yet, is even worse than forgetting to take the potion! By going there he would be taking the risk that he might not be able to get back quick enough to take his potion and transform! That is a risk that he simply can not afford to take! Now, my opinion is, a person isn't an airhead because they forgets something! Also, Lupin is not a bad person, or a not-so-great person, just because he made this mistake! By critisizing Lupin for making his mistake, people are pretty much saying that he doesn't understand how dangerous he is, and he is weak for it, and/or they are saying that he never should have taken the teaching position in the first place! Well, I plan to fight that, right now. I don't think he's weak-minded at all and I think that he genuinely despises himself for putting Harry and the rest in danger. Weak-minded includes carelessness, and I think that people make mistakes, and sometimes the costs are great, life and death, but that is a fact of life and it shouldn't make people believe they do not deserve to live! That is practically what people are saying about Lupin here, that he shouldn't take this job, even though he can't find work. You're saying he was wrong to take the job at all, or he's careless. He deserves to live and work just like the rest of us, sure there was risk, but with the new potion and plenty of teachers to look after the students, the risk was almost nonexistant... or so everyone rationally decided. Lupin now feels ashamed of himself for what has happened. And what has he done? Tried to live. ::sigh:: Okay, I think that's it... -Ahketsi [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From siskiou at earthlink.net Mon Jun 3 05:05:41 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 22:05:41 -0700 Subject: More about Ron, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hurt-Comfort and reader crushes In-Reply-To: <003401c20aae$ebec14a0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> References: <003401c20aae$ebec14a0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: <428230628.20020602220541@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39345 Hi, Sunday, June 02, 2002, 8:29:51 PM, Laura wrote: > Plus, it doesn't beginning to make up the whole thing with the Krum > doll for me...that part always made me feel *very* uneasy.. Why is that? What would have been an appropriate way of dealing with his feelings in your opinion? I'd rather have someone vent their feelings in this way than actually going and hurting the real person. Or do you think Ron should not feel jealous at all? Swallow it all down and pretend he's perfectly alright with everything? It seems, no matter what Ron does, it gets somehow turned against him :} To me he seems perfectly likeable, despite his faults, just like Hermione and Harry (though he has too few faults for me to see him as real, unless his emotions get completely out of control in a future book). I guess that's what makes lists so interesting. Seeing all the different views readers can get from reading the same books. I'm not at all like Hermione, Ron or Harry and identify with none of them fully. Looking at the Scabbers/Crookshanks debacle, I feel for Ron *and* Hermione, but admittedly just a bit more for Ron. Hermione just doesn't seem to care at all about Crookshanks constantly attacking Scabbers, despite overwhelming evidence that he *is* after Scabbers. But I've seen quite a few people claim that Ron doesn't care about Scabbers at all, and only makes a fuss to pester Hermione (I don't see it this way at all). And I realize nobody will change their opinion of the characters because of the way *I* feel, and nobody can convince me that Ron is a unlikeable, useless, clueless, lazy looser with mean tendencies and Harry and Hermione would be better off without him (I'm probably exaggerating, but that's how it sounds in some posts about Ron's characteristics). -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From Edblanning at aol.com Mon Jun 3 07:21:54 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 03:21:54 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Bewitching Hour & The Boggart Moon (WAS Lupin Is ... Message-ID: <45.1845f207.2a2c7312@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39346 Cindy: > Um. I'm thinking that this Bewitching Hour calculation that Lupin > does before he runs out that night is very, very complex. It > depends on the phases of the moon. And the time. And whenever > Lupin last took his potion. And on how healthy he is feeling. As a > result, Lupin can only pinpoint a *range* when the transformation > will happen. > > So why doesn't he hurry things along in the Shack? Because Lupin, > bless him, was *way* off on this one. He figured he had *hours* > left. He saw no reason to hurry, particularly since hurrying was > going to speed up the execution of a dear friend and increase the > chances of a blunder. No, Lupin was being methodical because he > thought he had time to be methodical. > > > I've never been taken with the idea that Lupin's transformation is > entirely a subjective reaction to the moon. If that were it, then > he could be kept indoors or simply stunned when it is time for the > full moon, I'd say. Lupin ought to have the same subjective > reaction to the boggart moon as he does to the real one. > > And of course, if the transformation is triggered by the objective > power of the moon, then Lupin should transform when the moon comes > up, not when the cloud cover breaks. I have a horrid feeling that JKR hasn't figured out this werewolf transformation thing as well as we're trying to do! :-) A while back some of us indulged in some LOONacy which showed that Lupin's 'illnesses' didn't coincide with either the real lunar calendar for that year, or one of any other. I think, as Cindy suggests, that the situation of calculating it is rather complex. There's a hint of this at the beginning of PoA, when Harry is staying at the leaky Cauldron and one of the other shoppers is showing off his purchases, ('it's a lunascope, old boy - no more messing about with moon charts, see?') I'm not sure exactly when a full moon starts and ends. If you observe the moon itself or look at one of the charts which shows you photographically the phases of the moon, it's very hard to say. I've often looked at what appears to be a full moon (and the six-year-old is excitedly predicting werewolves) only to find that it looks as full the next day. The moon's phases are constantly changing, aren't they, so there must be a specific moment when the disc becomes full and another when it ceases to be (and I suspect, though I don't know - are there any astronomers out there? - that the length of time may vary from month to month for the same reason that we don't always see *exactly* the same side of the moon - over time we see a little more that 50% of its surface). Even if we could say scientifically when the moon is full, we still don't know when it is technically full from the lycanthropic point of view. Would a transformation take place when the moon became full but was not yet visible above the horizon, for instance? I've never been happy with that transformation-when-the-moon-came-out-from-behind-the-clouds-thing. As Cindy implies, if it is the mere sight or exposure to the full moon that triggers the transformation, then staying inside out of sight of it ought to prevent it. And of course, given the amount of cloud cover in Britain, lycanthropy should be a minor inconvenience. :-) I have to say that the word FLINT comes to mind. ;-) Of course, we *could* reconcile it by saying that by some strange, tragic coincidence worthy of Hardy, the moon actually achieves fulness just at the moment when it comes out from behind a cloud and there happens to be a werewolf who's forgotten to take his potion on the loose. Mmm. And what of the effect of the potion? It's not a one-off dose he's forgotten, is it? Yet that one last forgotten dose proves critical. Perhaps it *has* worked, *until he sees the moon*. So it's not entirely a subjective transformation, but there's a subjective element to it and he's not quite medicated enough to overcome that part of it. I'm not convinced, but it's the best I can do with it. Lupin needs a lunascope, that's what I say. Eloise (who'd let Remus curl up on her hearth rug any time (only don't tell Severus) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chetah27 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 3 05:28:23 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 05:28:23 -0000 Subject: NixThe Bewitching Hour, It's The Moon I Tell Ya! /Lupin&Potions/The Boggart Moon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39347 ****The Bewitching Hour Even though I do very much like this theory, it DOES have it's flaws. I noticed them today as I finished re-reading PoA, with this theory on my mind. To quote Mahoney: <> Do we have any concept at all as to what time it was when Lupin > transformed?<> Yes, indeedy, we sure do! <> So out he runs...events happen...things get out of hand...and when > they leave the tunnel under the Whomping Willow, it's not the fact > that the moon breaks through that causes Lupin to change. The > appearance of the moon is simply what alerts Sirius to the reason > behind Lupin's sudden change in attitude. The cause of the change >is simply that Lupin's time has run out. Midnight of the first >full moon is at hand.<> Afraid this is where the theory falls apart. We do, infact, know that it was BEFORE midnight. Atleast an hour before midnight, I'd say. Canon definately supports this. *"I am going to lock you in. It is-" [Dumbledore] consulted his watch, "five minutes to midnight."* PoA, US Edition, Paperback, Pg. 393 That's when Harry and Hermione are lying in the hospital wing, and Lupin is romping around in the Forbidden Forest as a werewolf. So obviously, midnight doesn't seem to affect him. Nor does any hour before midnight, since he was out of the castle for, at the very least I'd say, about two hours before transformation. Now, if someone wanted to go through the last few chapters of PoA and figure out how the hours measure up(I know it says something about how Hary and Hermione waited an hour outside the Womping Willow, or such things like that) then they would definately be able to get a rather good timeslot of when, exactly, Lupin transformed. So yes, we do have an idea of when he transformed. But I'm not entirely positive that the HOUR has anything to do with it. Canon places more emphasis on the Moon that it does on the hour. And this confuses the heck out of me. Look at this... *A cloud shifted. There were suddenly dim shadows on the ground. Their party was bathed in moonlight." Harry could see Lupin's silhouette. He had gone rigid. Then his limbs began to shake.* PoA, US Paperback, Pg. 380 Lupin is completely fine wandering around on the Hogwarts grounds, until the moon pops out. Again... * "Here comes Lupin!" said Harry as they saw another figure sprinting down the stone steps and haring toward the Willow. Harry looked up at the sky. Coulds were obscuring the moon completely. * PoA, US PaperBack, Pg. 404 More emphasis on Lupin and the moon. This really confuses me. If Lupin has to be in the moonlight to transform, then why doesn't he have just stay inside when the full moon comes? But, from what canon says, I don't believe Lupin and the moon have a "Cinderella" sort of relationship, but a "Swan Princess" one does seem only slightly more likely... ****Lupin and his Wolfbane Potion Cindysphynx wrote: > Um. I'm thinking that this Bewitching Hour calculation that Lupin > does before he runs out that night is very, very complex. It > depends on the phases of the moon. And the time. And whenever > Lupin last took his potion. And on how healthy he is feeling. As a result, Lupin can only pinpoint a *range* when the transformation > will happen. > > So why doesn't he hurry things along in the Shack? Because Lupin, > bless him, was *way* off on this one. He figured he had *hours* > left. He saw no reason to hurry, particularly since hurrying was > going to speed up the execution of a dear friend and increase the > chances of a blunder. No, Lupin was being methodical because he > thought he had time to be methodical. In defense of Lupin not taking his potion- Snape seems to be the one always bringing it to him, but as Lupin tells Harry, it's because Snape is the one that brews it for him. So perhaps the reason why he ran out all dangerous like(besides the fact that he had just discovered that one of his good friends from school that he had thought was dead for 13 years is suddenly alive, and that his other good friend from school that he had thought was a murderer was cornered with his dead good friend's son), is because Snape had yet to bring him his potion, and he just didn't have time to go and get it. OOh, even more defense for Lupin- * "The potion that Professor Snape has been making for me is a very recent discovery. It makes me safe, you see. As long as I take it in the week preceding the full moon, I keep my mind when I transform...I am able to curl up in my office, a harmless wolf, and wait for the moon to wane again." * PoA, US Paperback, Pg.352-353 -the week preceding the full moon- Does this mean that he has to take the potion for a full week before the full moon, and then on the night of the full moon he's perfectly harmless? Or does it mean that during the whole week of the full moon is when Lupin changes? Well, it certainly means that he does have to take the potion more than once a month. Infact, when Snape first brings him the potion he tells him to give him another one the next day, I believe. So perhaps the reason he rushed out without his potion is because he thought/hoped that he had taken enough the last time he had drank some to last him an extra couple hours...? Hm...well, there's some definately quite a few things to chew on about Lupin's werewolfness. But I'm thinking on the night of the Shrieking Shack incident, Lupin just made a miscalculation. ****The Boggart Moon Cindysphynx wrote: > I've never been taken with the idea that Lupin's transformation is > entirely a subjective reaction to the moon. If that were it, then > he could be kept indoors or simply stunned when it is time for the > full moon, I'd say. Lupin ought to have the same subjective > reaction to the boggart moon as he does to the real one. > > And of course, if the transformation is triggered by the objective > power of the moon, then Lupin should transform when the moon comes > up, not when the cloud cover breaks. But the Boggart is a FAKE moon. And the moon definately seems to have some magical powers, and I don't think the Boggart can quite copy that- the moon has been around for milenia, after all. And if you want to go extremely technical, the Boggart wasn't copying the moon; it was copying the way the full moon looks on a clear night if you look up at it from Earth- an actual size moon definately wouldn't fit inside a classroom. And since Lupin's biggest fear is looking up and seeing that full moon, then I think his transformation -does- have something to do with him seeing it. ~Aldrea, who has definately succeeded in confusing herself on a few matters. From chetah27 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 3 06:18:08 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 06:18:08 -0000 Subject: Maybe Hagrid is the LOYAL person(who just has some major [confidence?] problems) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39348 Jenny from Ravenclaw: <>Well, I think Hagrid's annoyingly blind loyalty is exactly what could cause problems. I see a possible scenario with Hagird coming back in OoP after a wonderful summer with the giants, thinking differently about the wizard world... I see a possible resentment of the way he was treated at Hogwarts, and a possible turn of loyalty towards his newfound friends... and mom.<> Hagrid, disloyal to Dumbledore?! Disloyal to the WW/Hogwarts? I find this to be a massively hard horse pill to swallow... I don't think Hagrid could ever feel resentment to Hogwarts. I even remember a certain quote from a book, where Harry(musing on Hagrid's situation) thought about how horrible it must have been for Hagrid to have to sit by as Gamekeeper, ashamed and expelled, while his fellow classmates continue on and became full-fledged wizards and witches. But now(albeit over 50 years later) Hagrid does seem to love his job, Hogwarts, and the students(er, most of them)- no sign of resentment. And why would he ever feel resentment to the way he was treated? If Dumbledore hadn't had his say, it looked like Hagrid could have gone to Azkaban when he was but a boy. But Dumbledore stood by him all along, and proved in the right- because Hagrid was indeed innocent, which Harry proved for him later. Hagrid strongly, strongly places his faith in Dumbledore and everyting the man does- he never even suspects Snape, saying that he's a Hogwarts teacher and Dumbledore trusts him, so how can he be bad? Cindy responded to Jenny with: <>I agree that Hagrid's blind loyalty will surely come into play, but it is hard to imagine how this might happen. I can see Hagrid struggling with loyalty to his giantess mother and Dumbledore, but it is hard to imagine where JKR might go with this.<> I think Hagrid is yet another character that really has alot of growing up to do. Infact, I see Hagrid as being very insecure in his abilities. To quote from PoA- * "C'mon" Hagrid said angrily. "I'm takin' yer all back up ter shcool, an' don' let me catch yeh walkin' down ter see me after dark again. I'm not worth that!" * US Paperback, Pg. 122 And even in the first book, when he finds out about Harry's encounter with Quirrel/Voldemort and visits him in the hospital wing, he's broken down bawling and saying that it was all his fault. I know someone here has commented on what a horrible teacher Hagrid was; really though, he was off to a great start- but Malfoy's ridicule and the slip up in class shattered his fragile confidence, and reduced him to Flubberworms. Really, though, if the poor man would just get some confidence in his abilities... I think Hagrid has some major issues. His mother ran off and left him and his dad, could he blame himself for that?(hey, he blames himself for everything else) And his father's death, I wonder what's behind that.. Eloise: <>I have a deep inner conviction that Dumbledore is going to die because of Hagrid. I don't think he's going to prove disloyal, but there's plenty of evidence that calls into question his judgement and I think that one of these errors of judgement, perhaps even leading Dumbledore into an attempt to rescue him will prove fatal.<> *nods* Hagrid very much wears his emotions on his sleeve. When he's in a good mood he can be boisterous and jolly, but pull the rug from under him and he goes utterly to tears and becomes quite depressed. Get him drunk, and...well...it cerainly seems to loosen his tongue a bit. But that only seems to prove with matters of...well, not of the HIGHEST importance. When he told Quirrell about Fluffy's weakness in the pub, he didn't seem to be thinking about the Stone at all. He only informed him of a rather dangerous creature under his care. But he never mentioned the Stone- he knew how important that was. But still, this flaw looks as though it could come into play...though with matters as they stand, perhaps Hagrid will indeed grow up and seal his lips more tightly. Aldrea From katgirl at lava.net Mon Jun 3 08:33:43 2002 From: katgirl at lava.net (booklovinggirl) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 08:33:43 -0000 Subject: Harry's family/Remus's transformation In-Reply-To: <20020602163456.65965.qmail@web20802.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39349 Ronale7: >>It's Dumbledore who says Voldemort is the last remaining descendant of Slytherin.<< Ahh, but he doesn't say this. He says Voldemort is the last remaing *ancestor* of Slytherin, and despite the fact that this was changed to descendant for a few editions, JKR had it changed back. I'm extremely puzzled by this, because it must be an Important Fact for her to request the change from descendant to ancestor. Anyway...just trying to add another headache to the Gramps Voldemort topic. Aldy (Aldrea): >>*A cloud shifted. There were suddenly dim shadows on the ground. Their party was bathed in moonlight." Harry could see Lupin's silhouette. He had gone rigid. Then his limbs began to shake.* PoA, US Paperback, Pg. 380 Lupin is completely fine wandering around on the Hogwarts grounds, until the moon pops out.<< For a moment the possibility occured to me that Remus changed in bits and pieces on the walk, but then I had to thoroughly beat myself up for thinking this. Being a Remus obsessee, I find the "bits and pieces" idea pretty absurd. He'd SAY something if this was true. Anyway. I just swiveled around in my chair and thought of yet another theory. Remus was shackled to Pettigrew who was shackled to Ron. Is it possible that the shackles were silver, or had a traces of silver? And if so, is it possible that the silver negated the effects of the moon for a short time? If it only works for a short time, and/or silver hurts werewolves somehow, he might not use it most of the time. From cengle3 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 3 03:17:12 2002 From: cengle3 at yahoo.com (revrend_ish) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 03:17:12 -0000 Subject: The Bewitching Hour & The Boggart Moon (WAS Lupin Is Not An Airhead!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39350 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > And of course, if the transformation is triggered by the objective > power of the moon, then Lupin should transform when the moon comes > up, not when the cloud cover breaks. > > As applied to Lupin, then, the reason Lupin doesn't transform when > confronted by a boggart moon might have nothing to do with how he > feels, whether he is especially talented or experienced, whether he > has fear, or whether he drank his potion recently. It could be > simply that the boggart is doing its very best impersonation of the > moon but hasn't got the details right, just like its counterpart > in the maze. > > Cindy (unsure of how all of this fits into the Bewitching Hour > theory) I agree with everything you've said. But to take a different tact, what if the Full Moon is NOT the cause of a werewolf's transformation, but merely a coincedence? The Sun is overhead when I eat lunch, but I don't get hungry because of the sun's position, I wouldn't get hungry when it rains then. It's just that time of the day. Maybe, the full moon is just another sign that a certain "magical hour" is at hand. The sign would cause the fear (hence the bogarts transformation to it), but would NOT have the power, because it is not the time. This argument also goes with the calculations that Lupin has to make (as explained in an earlier post). He would know its a time. I know, the obvious point here is the fact that it is when the clouds break that he transforms in PoA. Again, this could be coincidental. Actually, I like Cindy's post alot better than mine. ish From Edblanning at aol.com Mon Jun 3 10:31:42 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 06:31:42 EDT Subject: Sirius and Snape Going It Alone (was: (unknown)) Message-ID: <16b.e809a74.2a2c9f8e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39351 Dicentra: > Well, besides the fact that it would have made an Awfully Short Novel > (WARPDRIVE!), Sirius didn't contact anyone because that's not how > Sirius operates. > > Other examples of Sirius Going It Alone: trying to assume the sole > care of Harry after the Potters were murdered, breaking into the > castle to get Peter (he *did* try to include someone else in his > plans, but that didn't work, did it?), trying to finish Peter off by > himself, and taking on Werewolf!Remus after he transformed (but he > didn't have much choice in that case). He's Lone Protector, and he > Eloise: Well, isn't that interesting, because as you might remember, this is exactly the same argument that I have made about Snape. He goes alone after Quirrell, apparently not sharing his worries at all (except possible with Filch). He takes it upon himself to protect Harry from Quirrell during Quidditch matches He goes after Sirius alone (I am assuming for the purposes of argument that this was why he followed Remus to the Shreiking Shack, since he was convinced that Remus was aiding Sirius), rather than informing Dumbledore and going with reinforccemnets to confront not only the dangerous magician that the Ministry needed trained hit-wizards to contain, but a possibly transformed werewolf. He doesn't share with Dumbledore his knowledge of the Marauder's Map. I have argued that part of his hatred of Harry originates in a jeaolousy of the child who keeps thwarting Voldemort when he wishes to be the one who does it, hence his attempts to thwart Harry in turn. We tend to assume that it was *he* who alerted the Potters to the fact that Voldemort was after them and I interpolate from this that he wanted to be the one who saved them. Possibly his going alone on this one also contributed towards their deaths. > > Or at least, that *was* his modus operandi. The next time Harry is > in trouble (GoF), we don't see Sirius trying to Go It Alone: he's > been corresponding with Dumbledore, and he's been taking Dumbledore's > insructions (where to find a cave to hide, etc.). No striking out on > his own. No heroics. And no screw-ups. Let's hope he's recognized > that he can't Protect The Pack on his own, and that we don't see him > reverting to Lone Protector in OoP and the rest. > > And likewise, at the end of GoF, we see Snape quietly acquiescing to his part in Dumbledore's plan. And that hard to interpret look at the banquet which could mean that he's reconsidering his rivalry with Harry. It's going to be essential that Sirius and Snape do become team players; the difficult thing is that they have to be on the same team (and I can't wait to see how they manage!) > > Now, *why* did think he had to Go It Alone? Dicentra stands and > swats the sand off her legs as she heads back to the Big Bang. That > Well, my argument is that Snape needs to Go It Alone to prove himself and to atone for the past and possibly just because That's the Way He Is. Some of us are a bit like that ;-) I think it's quite possible that Sirius' motivation is similar. > > --Dicentra, who's glad *one* of the Potterverse heartthrobs is > getting his act together > Err, make that two, will you? (No, I didn't really think that you would, but it was worth a try!) Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Zarleycat at aol.com Mon Jun 3 10:49:56 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 10:49:56 -0000 Subject: Sirius - Loyal to a Fault (was: no subject) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39352 > Dicentra thinks perhaps the best clues lie in a pattern of behavior > that has actually been laid down in canon. We know so little about > Sirius, really, but we do know this: > > He's a dog. > > Yep, a dog. And on this list it's pretty well established that > Sirius's primary virtue is loyalty, such as you would find with a > dog. And as is common with human beings, our virtues are often tied > in closely with our flaws; at times our virtues *are* our flaws, when > untempered by other virtues. > > Isn't it possible that Sirius is loyal to a fault, so to speak? Is > he so determined to be loyal to his "pack" that his single-minded > attempts to protect the ones he loves inevitably turn out badly? But > how could protecting someone be a flaw? Easy: when you take it upon > yourself to single-handedly effect that protection. of persuasive analysis of Sirius' Shrieking Shack statements. IIRC, others on this list have used the phrase "loose canon" to describe potential future problems with Sirius. I think that gets to Dicentra's point of Sirius being the type of guy who tends to Go It Alone. There's that underlying feeling of someone who may do something impulsive or dangerous or downright foolish, which may then put others in danger. If you're not a Sirius fan, you'll probably say to yourself that, of course, this is just arrogant, over- confident Sirius who thinks he's smarter than everyone else. And if you are a Sirius fan, you may be more charitable and agree that, yes, this is simply how the man operates - he perceives a danger to someone he cares about and his almost-compulsive reaction is to Do Something to protect that person. >Let's hope he's recognized > that he can't Protect The Pack on his own, and that we don't see him > reverting to Lone Protector in OoP and the rest. Hmmm. Of course, in GoF Sirius still has that pesky Dementor's Kiss sentence hanging over his head. And no wand. And only a handful of people who know the truth about Pettigrew. Even the most die-hard Protector of the Pack person might realize he's operating under some serious (ahem) constraints. Once free of these, assuming JKR does actually exonerate Sirius in the eyes of the Wizard World, will Sirius show he's learned from past experiences? Or will he have a sort of knee-jerk reaction and revert back to his old behavior, simply because he's now free to do so? > Now, *why* did think he had to Go It Alone? Dicentra stands and > swats the sand off her legs as she heads back to the Big Bang. File this under the heading of "We Need More Information." Did Sirius come from the type of family where going it alone is a survival technique? Or was his family so regimented and restricted that a naturally inquisitive, intelligent kid felt so stifled that going it alone was a way to break free? Certainly the implication is that, while at school, he and James were known as being a duo (Rosemerta - "Quite the double act." McGonagall - "leaders of their little gang." Flitwick - "Inseperable.") Perhaps this reflects the dynamics of the Marauders. James and Sirius were natural allies, so tended to operate as a unit. Remove James from the situtation, even for a short time like serving a detention, and neither Remus nor Peter would take James' place in Sirius' view. Without James around, perhaps Sirius was more likely to act on his own. Marianne From cindysphynx at comcast.net Mon Jun 3 10:58:43 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 10:58:43 -0000 Subject: NixThe Bewitching Hour, It's The Moon I Tell Ya! /Lupin&Potions/The Boggart Moon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39353 Aldrea wrote (about the Bewitching Hour): > Afraid this is where the theory falls apart. We do, infact, know > that it was BEFORE midnight. Atleast an hour before midnight, I'd > say. Canon definately supports this. > > *"I am going to lock you in. It is-" [Dumbledore] consulted his > watch, "five minutes to midnight."* PoA, US Edition, Paperback, Pg. > 393 Hmmm. What would Mahoney say? Actually, the term "Bewitching Hour" is a bit misleading. In Mahoney's original example, she used midnight as the Bewitching Hour as a convenient example. But the theory doesn't require that it be midnight. The Bewitching Hour (which might not even an hour, BTW) is simply whatever time it is that triggers Lupin's transformation. It might be 11:30, it might be 2:00 a.m. Who knows? But it does not have to be midnight, and on the night in question, it wasn't midnight. So what was the time of the Bewitching Hour that night? That's easy! The Bewitching Hour occurred at precisely . . . the moment that Lupin transformed. ;-) It's Air-Tight, I tell ya! ;-) Cindy (who thinks hunger might be based solely on the position of the sun in the sky, which would explain why she eats all day) From ronale7 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 3 12:08:55 2002 From: ronale7 at yahoo.com (Ronale Stevens) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 05:08:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: grandpa Riddle / Snape / A LOT OF BASELESS SPECULATION about The Prank In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020603120855.54945.qmail@web20807.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39354 --- catlady_de_los_angeles wrote: > > I don't believe that Riddle was James Potter's > father because it is > Such a Big Deal and James and Harry are Potters, and > I don't believe > that Riddle was James's mother because sex-change > doesn't seem to > have been one of his habits. I could believe that he > is James's > mother's father and James inherited his looks from > his mother, if you > can make the dates fit. Let's see. If he was born in > 1927, he could > have fathered a child born in 1947 (it is not > altogether necessary > that he was married to the mother or that the child > was planned), > who... would have been 12 in 1960, and only 10 if > James was born in > 1957 like I think. No. > > The Lexicon says Riddle was born in 1927 and James about 1960. Why shouldn't a 33 year old man father a child? The name Potter could have come from anywhere--it may be James's mother's name. As for being a big deal, parricide shows up in myths all over the world just because it's an important concept. Rowling's not afraid of it--she puts three parricides in GF. She may be foreshadowing another: Harry's defeat of his grandfather. --Ronale7 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Mon Jun 3 12:55:41 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 12:55:41 -0000 Subject: The Bewitching Hour & The Boggart Moon (WAS Lupin Is Not An Airhead!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39355 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Marina wrote (about why Lupin doesn't transform at the boggart moon): > > >The effect that the Dementors have on > > people is a property inherent to Dementors, so the boggart > >acquires it along with the hooded cloak and the scabied hands. The > >werewolf transformation, OTOH, is a property of the *werewolf*, not > >of the moon, so the boggart has nothing to do with it. > > I'm not sure this takes us all the way there. What is the *reason* > Lupin transforms involuntarily? It has to do either with the > objective power of the moon, or the subjective, internal feelings > Lupin has when he sees it, right? I think the lycanthropy is a sort of magical trigger inside Lupin that responds to the full moon. The trigger "knows" the difference between the real moon and a round glowy thing that only looks like the moon. (And, as someone else astutely pointed out, the boggart doesn't *really* turn into the moon -- to do that it would've had to turn into a spherical chunk of rock thousands of miles across.) Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From dicentra at xmission.com Mon Jun 3 14:28:40 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 14:28:40 -0000 Subject: NixThe Bewitching Hour, It's The Moon I Tell Ya! /Lupin&Potions/The Boggart In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39356 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Actually, the term "Bewitching Hour" is a bit misleading. In > Mahoney's original example, she used midnight as the Bewitching Hour > as a convenient example. But the theory doesn't require that it be > midnight. The Bewitching Hour (which might not even an hour, BTW) > is simply whatever time it is that triggers Lupin's transformation. > It might be 11:30, it might be 2:00 a.m. Who knows? But it does > not have to be midnight, and on the night in question, it wasn't > midnight. > If you look in the almanac, it will tell you not only the day of the full moon but the precise *time*. Apparently, the moon is truly full for only a few minutes before it begins to wane. I'm thinking that Lupin transforms at *that* moment, so if the moon was out beforehand (obscured by clouds) but not truly full, it wouldn't affect him. And it wouldn't necessarily be midnight. Boy, wasn't JKR lucky the clouds parted at exactly the same moment the moon became full! Furthermore, the full moon represents a relationship between the earth, sun, and moon. The boggart moon can't replicate this. So that's why the boggart moon doesn't effect a transformation. That the boggart Dementor can do dementor things is what seems weird to me. --Dicentra From pollux46 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 3 14:44:23 2002 From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 14:44:23 -0000 Subject: Comforting!Ron, Sensitive!Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39357 Charisjulia said: <<<>>> Penny responded: <<<<<<>>>>>>>> Oh, no, I really did not want to turn the discussion to Ron's prejudices. . . I refuse to be dragged into * that* endless argument. ;^) And anyway prejudice or the lack of it was not what I was referring to. Probably a bit of a bad choice of words there. What I meant was that Ron is not. . . err. . . oh drat! I hit on just the right word at 4 am last night but then I went to bed and. . . hang on it might come to me again. . . Nope. Gone. Blast. Anyway, you'll have to put up with the roundabout explanation now. OK, so forget about accepting people. What I meant is that Ron doesn't set moral standards for his friends to live up to. This scene does illustrate this point. Ron isn't thinking about truth--telling here. He's thinking about Harry. Hermione's first reaction is to concentrate on the lie, not Harry's feelings. So, I'm really sorry, Penny, but I'm afraid that how this proves that she's worried about Harry more than Sirius is not evident to me. Why would Harry get into trouble here for lying? The worst thing that could happen to him would be a scold from Sirius. And the scene tells me nothing whatsoever about how she feels about the prospect of Sirius's arrest, it only evinces her aversion for lying. Which is of course a * good* thing. But not what Harry wants to hear and therefore not exceptionally comforting for him. Ron's attitude is comforting OTOH. He picks up on what his friend needs right then at once, realises that this is a no win situation and doesn't begin to lecture Harry about the way he chose to handle it. * * * I was stunned to see Penny describing Harry as sensitive: <<<<<<>>>>> Penny pointed out that Ginny and Colin are by no means Harry's inferiors. Of course not. I absolutely agree. Not as human beings or students, no. I merely used that word because it was the one Sirius's uses there. But by no means did I mean to insinuate that they're inferior as human beings or students or wahtever, though of course it would come across that way. Once again my mistake. Sloppy use of language. What I did mean however is that Harry is the one in the position of power here. It's the Creeveys, Ginny and Dobby who are hero? worshipping * him*. It's only common courtesy I'd say to give back a proper response. You know, the kind where one can actually make out the words and not just a jumble of mumblings and the kind where one can see the speaker's face instead of his back fleeing. I realise Harry's got other troubles on his mind what with unwanted photo shoots and being de?boned and everything, but the fact remains that at least in my book "No", "I'm in a hurry" and "It'll be boring" * are* rude and insensitive. As proof of Harry's sensitivity Penny quoted JKR: "He's delicate isn't he?" "He is. He's more your sensitive hero. And more of that stuff happens." And then listed: <<<<<** giving his last chocolate frog to Neville in PS/SS ** treating Dobby so courteously, even knowing Dobby was about to get him in hot water ...CoS ** his reactions to the Dementors seem evidence of sensitivity & emotional depth to me ... he cries when he hears his father's voice after all ** he tries to make things up with Hermione *twice* in POA ... but both times, it's *Ron* who foils the reconciliation ** he's *worried* through much of GoF ** everything from the point that Harry sees Cedric's murder to the *end* of GoF ... *all* of it shows incredible depth of emotion & sensitivity on Harry's part IMO>>>>>>> Err, I wasn't saying that Harry isn't delicate. What I meant by lack of sensitivity was lack of concern for others feelings. (we were talking about comfort giving weren't we?) Hence the Colin, Myrtle etc examples. Of course he's delicate, he'd have to be made of stone to not be after what he's been through! In fact he's probably * too* sensitive that way. He's often so caught up in all his own trials and tribulations (by no means insignificant ones either) that he just doesn't get round to thinking about others. So, as far as sensitivity towards others is concerned, well, you've got Neville and the Chocolate Frog and err, nothing else that I can think of. No, trying to make up with Hermione does not count IMO. And that's because I don't see an awful lot of trying going on there. Making a suggestion and then giving up at once when Ron turns it down fails to impress me. And the best he manages when Hagrid asks the boys to give her a break is to exchange an "uncomfortable look" with Ron and then forget about the matter completely. Not enough. IMO both Ron and Harry treated Hermione pretty bad in third year. Charis Julia. From skelkins at attbi.com Mon Jun 3 17:19:28 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 17:19:28 -0000 Subject: Boggart powers (WAS: NixTheBewitchingHour, etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39358 Dicentra wrote: > Furthermore, the full moon represents a relationship between the > earth, sun, and moon. The boggart moon can't replicate this. So > that's why the boggart moon doesn't effect a transformation. Besides, what Lupin fears the most isn't the moon itself. The moon is just a hunk of rock. That's really not what scares him. What Lupin fears is his own lycanthropy, which is *represented* to him by the sight of the full moon. Boggarts are obviously capable of a rather sophisticated symbolic version of "taking the form of ones worst fear." They can, for example, represent Hermione's fear of failure and of disappointing those who have placed both their trust and some very high expectations on her by taking the form of McGonagall -- who is certainly not *herself* all that frightening to Hermione. (Nor, for that matter, do I really think that what scares Neville the most about Snape is really Snape as a person at all.) Lupin himself identifies Harry's dementor boggart as the "fear of fear." I don't really believe that the boggarts can simulate the abilities or powers of the forms that they take. If such were the case, then I find it *very* difficult to believe that anyone would consider it appropriate to teach children how to banish them in a classroom setting, particularly only one year after a basilisk had been preying on students in that same school. What if a basilisk had turned out to be some kid's personal bogey? Not at all unlikely, only one year after _CoS._ And that would have been good, wouldn't it? Half of the class would have been *dead* before anyone could manage to stammer out a "Riddikulus." Nope. No, I don't believe that the boggarts work that way at all. If they did, then the idea of leaving one hanging around in a wardrobe for students to "practice" on would be absolutely *insane.* > That the boggart Dementor can do dementor things is what seems > weird to me. I don't think that it can, really. I think that it's all psychosomatic. If Harry hadn't already known from his experience on the train what the dementors could do to him, then the boggart wouldn't have had at all the same effect. Hmmm? What's that you say? You want to know about the dimming of the lights? Er. Yes. Well. I think *that* is probably a ::coughFLINTcough:: manifestation of Harry's spontaneous magic. He's dimming the lights himself through unconscious magic, in precisely the same way that Neville is always melting all of those cauldron bottoms in Snape's Potions Class. -- Elkins (who must regretfully agree with the Pipsqueak that Lupin does indeed have a few, um, *issues* which make him less than an ideal choice as a person to keep around in school full of children, but who also feels convinced that after the "forgetting to take his potion" incident, Lupin would have resigned on his own accord, even if Snape hadn't outed him.) From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Mon Jun 3 18:26:27 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 18:26:27 -0000 Subject: TBAY: acronym: Equals!Ron&Hermione In-Reply-To: <02a801c20aa1$92adc7b0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39359 Penny Linsenmayer wrote: > I think I need an acronym for this position, Tabouli. Are you reading? No, wait, Tabouli is travelling. Any other acronym-generators? So far, all I know is that Amy Z and I are both members of the "Ron and Hermione are Equal Best Friends to Harry" club. We need an acronym all the same though I say. > > Penny The Grey Wolf, feeling lonely since his mentor and chief Tabouli had left Theory Bay for some much-deserved vacations, had been running all over the cold marshes of the North, not even listening to the calls in the cold, bitter wind of his homeland, his mind preocupied in such un-wolf-like thoughts that they bear not repeating. He had criss-crossed half a dozen times his hunting range, catching whatever animals were unlucky enough to cross it's path, eating them on the run, never stopping, never even slowing down to take pleasure in the food. However, a special visit made him suddenly stop and sit on he's hunches: a cat had dared come to the cold North, facing both the prospect of a frozen death and the danger of becoming a quick snack for the great wolf, to make a request. The cat, bearing a winged insignia, needed not speak: it's clear, sandclock-shaped eyes, spoke for themselves. The wolf's help was once again needed in the far, hot South. He may have not heard the call of the wind, but the wolf could not ignore the call of his honour. Once again, he disregarded the appalling prospect of the hot South and he speeded to fullfil his role. Which means: Penny, I was told about you petition. Since I am the second member of TAGWATCH (Tabouli And Grey Wolf's Acronym Tempering Company Headquarters), I might be lesser known but I still bear my own weight in the association, even though I'm fighting my way in an alien language. Hope you like it. Disclaimer: this post contains little Harry Potter related material. This is *wrong*. Children, don't do it at home ;-). I'd normally introduce this in another, canon-related, post, but I haven't the time, so I'm risking the wrath of the Mods. Hopefully, I won't be shouted at much (I was shouted enough in the last chat - see OT for directions), since I'm doing this because Catlady_de_los_Angeles brought it to my attention (I think she's a Mod herself), and I'm doing this for the benefit of Penny and, indirectly, AmyZ (maybe another Mod). Maybe if I throw around enough important names, I'll be spared... this time (take note, Cindy). I still promise I'll try not to do it again. Anyway, we need an acronym about the fact that Ron and Hermione are equal best friends of Harry. Ummmm, let's see... I need 2 H, one E, 1 R, an F and a B. I can do without the B, and better go for H, E, R, F and P. What does that suggest? Ah, yes: H.E.A.R.T. O.F. P.L.A.T.I.N.U.M. Hermione Equals Amicable Ron at Offering Friendship to Potter, Leaving Astounded Thinkers of Inequality Never Understanding its Magic. It includes a punch for the umbelievers, suggesting that the magic of the relation of the triad is precisely the fact that one is not more "friend" of Harry than the other (well, yes, I did need to fill in a few letters, but it looks great nonetheless, don't you think?) Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who hopes that, if Penny likes it, she will use private e-mail to tell him, or else he fears he'll never know. From dicentra at xmission.com Mon Jun 3 18:31:06 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 18:31:06 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Sirius Flaws <== what (unknown) should have been In-Reply-To: <16b.e809a74.2a2c9f8e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39360 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > Dicentra: > > Well, besides the fact that it would have made an Awfully Short Novel > > (WARPDRIVE!), Sirius didn't contact anyone because that's not how > > Sirius operates. > > > > Other examples of Sirius Going It Alone: trying to assume the sole > > care of Harry after the Potters were murdered, breaking into the > > castle to get Peter (he *did* try to include someone else in his > > plans, but that didn't work, did it?), trying to finish Peter off by > > himself, and taking on Werewolf!Remus after he transformed (but he > > didn't have much choice in that case). He's Lone Protector, and he > > Dicentra almost makes it out of the museum door when she feels a tiny, gooey thing hit her in the cheek. She turns and sees Eloise flicking blowfish eyes at her. Eloise says, a little too innocently: > > Well, isn't that interesting, because as you might remember, this is exactly > the same argument that I have made about Snape. > D'oh! Dicentra was hoping to avoid that until later. Maybe until never. She *did* remember the argument that Snape Goes It Alone, and was deeply disturbed when she found that same characteristic in Sirius. Probably was what invoked this: "The lights are dimmed but she can still see Sirius Black and Ron. Sirius has that waxy skin, yellow teeth, and insane rictus going. Dirty black hair. Yeech. Good thing he cleans up good." The physical resemblance cannot be accidental; Snape just doesn't have 12 years in a hell-hole to blame. Is it possible that the two hate each other at least in part because they are so much alike? Two north poles of a magnet? Dicentra has a friend she can't stand because she sees too much of herself in that friend (the friend doesn't see it at all). Somewhere in the depths of the archives someone wondered if the two might not be related. Perish the thought! It's going to be > essential that Sirius and Snape do become team players; the difficult thing > is that they have to be on the same team (and I can't wait to see how they > manage!) They probably won't. Not at first, anyway. > > > > > Now, *why* did think he had to Go It Alone? Dicentra stands and > > swats the sand off her legs as she heads back to the Big Bang. That > > > > Well, my argument is that Snape needs to Go It Alone to prove himself and to > atone for the past and possibly just because That's the Way He Is. Some of us > are a bit like that ;-) I think it's quite possible that Sirius' motivation > is similar. Dicentra contemplates this and agrees with the That's The Way He Is part, but thinks Sirius Goes It Alone because he's so incredibly smart he doesn't think he needs help from a bunch of morons. But obviously he's not as smart as he thinks he is. No one person could be smart enough to pull off what he attempts, with the possible exception of Dumbledore. > > > > --Dicentra, who's glad *one* of the Potterverse heartthrobs is > > getting his act together > > > Err, make that two, will you? There are only two to begin with: the other one has lycanthropy issues :-) (No, I didn't really think that you would, but it was worth a try!) If you say so. Dicentra picks up one of the blowfish eyes and attempts to flick it back at Eloise. She succeeds only in squishing it between her thumb and middle finger. --Dicentra, *extremely* peeved that a certain actor didn't win a Tony last night From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Mon Jun 3 18:55:50 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 18:55:50 -0000 Subject: Boggart powers (WAS: NixTheBewitchingHour, etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39361 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > Dicentra wrote: > > That the boggart Dementor can do dementor things is what seems > > weird to me. Elkins replied: > I don't think that it can, really. I think that it's all > psychosomatic. If Harry hadn't already known from his experience > on the train what the dementors could do to him, then the boggart > wouldn't have had at all the same effect. > > Hmmm? What's that you say? You want to know about the dimming of > the lights? > > Er. Yes. Well. I think *that* is probably a ::coughFLINTcough:: > manifestation of Harry's spontaneous magic. He's dimming the > lights himself through unconscious magic, in precisely the same way > that Neville is always melting all of those cauldron bottoms in > Snape's Potions Class. > I'm not sure Harry is actually dimming the lights himself; or indeed that the lights are dimming at all. Following on from the 'psychosomatic' thought... The Boggart seems to have the ability to reach into people's minds and tap into their darkest fears, taking on the appearance of those fears. In which case the dimming of the lights and the cold are all part of the Boggart's powers of illusion. Harry 'thinks' they rekindle after each Boggart attack; suppose the reason they are alight after each attack is that they never really went out? The cold would also be a power of illusion - the Boggart senses that Harry associates Dementors with cold, so you get a 'sense' of cold. This would be why a Boggart is 'safe' enough to use in teaching a third-year class - the worst it can do is scare you to death. > > -- Elkins (who must regretfully agree with the Pipsqueak that Lupin > does indeed have a few, um, *issues* which make him less than an > ideal choice as a person to keep around in school full of children, > but who also feels convinced that after the "forgetting to take his > potion" incident, Lupin would have resigned on his own accord, even > if Snape hadn't outed him.) Pip (who agrees with Elkins that Lupin would have resigned anyway, but notes that while Snape is almost as good as Dumbledore at second chances he's probably not trusting enough to give people a third.) Squeak! From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 3 18:59:04 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 18:59:04 -0000 Subject: Lupin is an honest, nasty, DISLOYAL person (who is ever so evil) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39362 WARNING: This post is seriously twisted. It was going to be a TBay, but the more I thought about it, the more canon I found. I don't like it. But, God and JKR help me, it fits. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > So who does Dumbledore trust enough to let his guard down? It's a > fairly short list, I think: > 6. Lupin/Sirius. No. No, no, no. This is a red flag. JKR wouldn't create two characters with the same narrative function. Only one of them can be the scapegoat--the other is guilty, guilty, guilty. It can't be Sirius. Everybody in the wizarding world thinks he dunnit. It's Harry's quest to clear his name. But that leaves-- Yup. Lupin is ever so evil. Don't get me wrong. I don't like this. I really don't like this. It's heartbreaking. Only, that's what evil is, right? Frodo doesn't really understand the power of Mordor till he sees Hobbiton in ruins. No. No, no, no? That's what Luke Skywalker said. And he felt angry and sad and horribly betrayed. So do I. This explains all the Lupin mysteries...why he didn't tell Dumbledore about Sirius or the map, why he's so calm and unhurried in the shack, why he insists that Sirius and he have to tell the whole story, why he left the map where Snape could find it. It explains why Crouch!Moody is so good at teaching DADA. It even explains The Prank. I say Lupin is a servant of Voldemort. Where did he go after James and Lily died? To Albania perhaps? Equipped with a wand but unable to aid his master because of his condition? Lupin could hardly tend to baby Voldie's needs in wolf form, after all. But then Sirius escapes Azkaban. And Voldemort sends Lupin to find and murder Sirius who killed his servant Peter. Lupin and Voldie don't know that Peter is alive, of course. Now I tried to dismiss this theory. I told myself it wouldn't fly without a honking big pink flamingo of a clue. Unfortunately there is one. ****"When they get near me--" Harry stared at Lupin's desk, his throat tight. "I can hear Voldemort murdering my mum." Lupin made a sudden motion with his arm as though to grip Harry's shoulder, but thought better of it."*****PoA Ch. 10 Yep, Lupin is extremely reluctant to touch Harry, not surprising since the last Voldemort employee who tried it got fried. Better wait till Harry is unconscious and try it then. PoA Ch. 12 There's another clue, of the "can't tell you how pleased I am to meet you" variety. ****"Forgive me, Remus," said Black. "Not at all, Padfoot, old friend,"***** PoA ch. 19 (shiver) But Lupin taught Harry to fight the Dementors. Yeah, just like Moody taught Harry to fight Imperius. But not because Dumbledore made him. . Imagine the villain-tells-all scene where Lupin explains just how much he enjoyed watching Harry live through the agony of his parents' deaths, over and over and over again. (shudder) Come to think of it, Crouch!Moody does *exactly* what Lupin did to win Harry's confidence. Humiliate one of his enemies, like Snape or Draco (Boggart/ferret) Befriend Neville ( Boggart/herbology book) Use Voldemort's name. Crouch!Moody only uses it once, IIRC. But it's important, because *we* have to know that Voldemort's servants can use it if they wish. Teach him a really neat dark arts fighting technique (patronus, imperius resistance) Show him a little undeserved favoritism (rooting for Gryffindor, help with the First Task) Get him out of a tight spot with Snape (Snape's Grudge/Egg and the Eye) It's almost like Moody had instructions, isn't it? And of course, he did..."I've had a letter from Professor Lupin..." (shiver) GoF ch. 14 How did Crouch!Moody, who's never taught a lesson in his life, get so good at teaching DADA? Lupin taught him. He *is* a good teacher. He does have one rather frightening hobby: he makes pets out of Dark Creatures and then kills them. We know what happened to the Boggart in the wardrobe. But what happened to the Grindylow, eh? Why put in the detail of the empty case? (shiver) Now, consider the night of the Shack: Eversoevil!Lupin has been waiting all year to get his hands on Sirius. Just as he tells the trio, he hasn't been helping Sirius get into the castle. Indeed, he doesn't want Harry dead. (shiver) In fact Lupin himself shivers here. No, Voldemort has warned him not to let Harry die. Lupin figures that the Trio will go down to see Hagrid the night of the execution, which, ever so conveniently is going to be a full moon. He knows that Sirius is lurking on the grounds, because he's seen him on the map. He guesses that Sirius will try to contact Harry. This is Lupin's big chance. Not only will he kill Sirius, he will save Harry Potter. Perfect! He takes his potion, but secretly. It's easy to break into Snape's office, as we have been most carefully shown, and Snape brews the stuff by the cauldronful. Then Lupin waits. But look! There, on the Map, it's --Peter Pettigrew?? But Pettigrew's *dead*. Lupin's got to have an explanation for this. He sees everyone enter the willow, and he gets a brilliant idea. He leaves the activated map on the table and runs out toward the Shack, knowing Snape will come to give him the potion, see him on the map and follow him just as he did twenty years before. Sirius Black never planned to murder Snape. Lupin did. And Lupin hates Harry, just the way he's hated James, ever since James thwarted his beautiful plan. Of all the Marauders, Lupin has the best reason to want Snape dead, since he has the most to lose if his secret is revealed. He doesn't think he'll be blamed...the werewolf did it, not him. So Lupin gets to the shack, and then he insists, insists! on a long detailed explanation from Sirius. He hasn't been Sirius' friend, but now that it turns out that Sirius is innocent of killing Pettigrew, he is, for a while. Lupin has to be very careful to tell the exact truth. Crookshanks is there, just as he was in the compartment on the train. The beast has only limited kneazle power. He can recognize an animagus, but he doesn't have the full "detect unsavoury" ability or he would have reacted to Draco. Even if you think Draco's okay, are we supposed to believe Crabbe and Goyle are too? As soon as the moon comes out, Lupin will transform and kill them, all except Harry. Yes, even under the influence of the potion, because, alas! Lupin's human mind is just as twisted and evil as his werewolf one. "It is our choices, not our abilities..." Then Snape shows up, and the plan nearly fails. Fortunately for Lupin, the Trio foil Snape. Sirius suggests the ridiculous idea of chaining Lupin to Pettigrew and Lupin goes along with it. He wants Peter to get away, because now it's Peter who must die for his disloyalty to LV, and young Potter has these idiotic scruples about it. Lupin transforms, keeping his human mind, and attacks. Pettigrew gets away. Lupin breaks off the battle with Sirius and heads toward the forest, planning to double back and pursue Pettigrew after he's dealt with Sirius. Sirius chases off after Pettigrew and then, mysteriously, hundreds of Dementors appear and attack Sirius, Hermione, Harry and Ron. Think about it. There've been people wandering around the grounds all night. Snape, Fudge, MacNair, Dumbledore, Hagrid, Tt!Harry and Tt!Hermione . The Dementors don't bother any of them. Then all of a sudden there are hundreds. Why? Because werewolf!Lupin set the Dementors on our heroes. (shiver!) Can the Dementors tell when they're dealing with a human mind in a canid body? They can't. But the plan fails. Tt!Harry conjures Prongs (how horrifying for Evil!Lupin), then Snape comes around and takes Sirius up to the castle. Lupin has no choice but to spend the night in the forest. But, as he tells Hagrid, he didn't bite anyone. How Lupin would know that, if he was out of his mind that night, we aren't told. Suppose Snape discovers sometime during the night that a gobletful of potion is missing. Now he understands, but it's not proof. It's still his word against Lupin's. Snape takes his fate in his hands. Dumbledore may not forgive him for this, but he has no choice. He "accidentally" forces Lupin to resign. Driven from Hogwarts, Lupin goes back and reports to his master, who is thus well prepared when Pettigrew appears. Was Lupin in the circle the night Cedric died? Could be. Why doesn't Snape object when Sirius is sent to Lupin's? Well, there's no time to argue with Dumbledore. Snape's got a job to do. And he's no friend of Sirius, handshake or no. Well there you have it. There's just one thing I want you to do. Talk me out of it! Pippin From cengle3 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 3 16:24:38 2002 From: cengle3 at yahoo.com (Charles Engle) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 09:24:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Bewitching Hour & The Boggart Moon (WAS Lupin Is Not An Airhead!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020603162438.56532.qmail@web12307.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39363 One other theory I've had is that Harry's reaction to the boggart is psychosomatic. Non-canonical of course, but perhaps Lupin knows that the boggart can't turn him into a wolf, so it has no power over him. Harry doesn't know that it cannot truly exert dementor powers (just the impression of them) and so, he is affected (though, not nearly as bad as a real dementor). Lupin doesn't tell him because he knows Harry needs the experience, and a chance never arises later. You'll note, too, that the boggart-dementor in the third task (GoF) does NOT give Harry that weak feeling, so he may have since learned the truth and JKR didn't share it with us. Just an idea. Charles B. Engle, III CCNA, Network+ --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Mon Jun 3 19:18:47 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 19:18:47 -0000 Subject: TOUCHE' Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39364 Tired Of Ugly Convoluted Hard-to-swallow Expositions Snape is a mean, ugly shnook. He isn't pretending. Snape is loyal to Dumbledore. Second-chance Dumbledore got him out of a terrible mess and gave him back his self-respect. There is no way he is going to louse that up. He has far too much integrity. Snape hated James in the same way Draco hates Harry, to quote Dumbledore. Draco does NOT love Hermione or Ginny (fanfics besides). Draco hated Harry before they entered the picture. So it is unlikely that Snape hates Harry because of Lily. He hates him because of James, and everytime he sees Harry, he is reminded of his life-debt to James, a person he despised. Dumbledore is a good guy. The gleam is because he just realized a fatal error on the part of Voldemort. Snape is unlikely to be going back as a spy. (1) Voldemort can tell he is lying. (2) That is what Harry thinks might happen, so that makes it less likely. (3) Even if #1 isn't true, everybody thinks it is, and Snape is too valuable to waste on the off-chance that it isn't. Is Snape a vampire? Perhaps, but I think the problems of him being one quickly start multiplying out of control. Besides all the legend- lore problems; why hasn't somebody, somewhere, somewhen spilled the beans? A juicy piece of gossip like that concerning the school's most hated teacher would not stay secret for very long. Why hasn't Hermione nailed Mister "I don't see a difference?" Why hasn't some other swot done it? From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Mon Jun 3 20:00:10 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 20:00:10 -0000 Subject: Lupin, Bewitching Hour, Wolfbane potion In-Reply-To: <45.1845f207.2a2c7312@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39365 Eloise wrote: > And what of the effect of the potion? It's not a one-off dose he's, > forgotten is it? Yet that one last forgotten dose proves critical. > Perhaps it *has* worked, *until he sees the moon*. So it's not > entirely a subjective transformation, but there's a subjective > element to it and he's not quite medicated enough to overcome that > part of it. > > I'm not convinced, but it's the best I can do with it. > > Lupin needs a lunascope, that's what I say. > > Eloise > (who'd let Remus curl up on her hearth rug any time (only don't tell > Severus) Ah! I love the werewolves threads so much I couldn't help but throw my own opinion in, even though I'm extremelly busy lately. I must say I find this theory the best of all proposed in the thread, so I'm going to grab it and run away with it: the medication ("wolfbane potion") progressively wears down not only the werewolf's killer instinct (canon tells us that he still transforms, but has the control to just hide under his desk), but also stalls the wolf's transformation for a few hours, as long as the moonlight doesn't hit him. Why, I hear you ask, does he transform at all, then? Well, the potion isn't finished yet. It's already working, in the sense that as long as Lupin drinks it there is no danger of hurting someone, but PotionMaster!Snape is still working on the formulae (the real reason he agreed to the whole scheme) so that (some day) it stops the transformations entirely (for that little discovery, I'm sure Snape would get a Merlin Order first class, which is his real objective, even if he *does* have to help Lupin on the way). The potion curbs the instinct, and keeps Lupin from transforming in "those days" as long as the moon doesn't hit him... for a few hours. Then, about two or three in the morning, the moon's presence is just too much and he transforms, even if he's behind walls or it's a cloudy night. Now, the shack scene makes more sense: Lupin did miscalculate, since he decided not to take the potion on the basis of: "I've taken enough to last me until one o'clock. As long as I don't see the d*mned moon, I'll be alright" ::looks out of the window:: "Cloudy night; no danger... I'm in a hurry: better get going". But the important thing is not that it was a casualty that the witching hour happened when Lupin saw the moon, it's only that the potion was effective until then, but it's potency -without that crucial last dose- wasn't enough to curb his insticts, and even with the last dose it wouldn't have stopped him from transforming. There is one last consideration to be done: Lupin wasn't only in a hurry, he also knew -very well!- that he was going to need all his wits with him to face his two old companions, Sirius and Peter, and he knew that taking the last dose of the medicine would almost incapacitate him, so he took the risk, hoping that the night would remain cloudy (not a bad guess, being Scotland and all...). I like it, for a rushed theory. Let's see who's the first to poke holes in it. If no-one does, maybe I'll even find time to write an acronym for it. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, always ready to think the worst of Snape, and still will surely understimate him. From meboriqua at aol.com Mon Jun 3 20:11:22 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 20:11:22 -0000 Subject: Sensitive!Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39366 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "charisjulia" wrote: >It's the Creeveys, Ginny and Dobby who are hero worshipping * him*. It's only common courtesy I'd say to give back a proper response. You know, the kind where one can actually make out the words and not just a jumble of mumblings and the kind where one can see the speaker's face instead of his back fleeing. > I realise Harry's got other troubles on his mind what with unwanted > photo shoots and being de?boned and everything, but the fact remains > that at least in my book "No", "I'm in a hurry" and "It'll be boring" * are* rude and insensitive.> Here I must jump in to defend my dear Harry. I think Harry has been extremely courteous to Colin Creevey who, IMO, has been more than annoying in CoS. I would call him a nuisance. Following Harry around, staring at his scar, snapping photos of Harry while Harry is at Quidditc practice... Colin is invasive and inconsiderate of Harry and his privacy. Colin is no friend of Harry's and certainly doesn't want to be. What he is interested in is the fact that Harry is "Famous Harry Potter", much like Draco was when he met Harry for the second time on the train. I think Colin is the one who needs to have some courtesy, and I think Harry has been consistently more polite than necessary to Colin. --jenny from ravenclaw, biggest defender of harry *************************************************** From skelkins at attbi.com Mon Jun 3 20:18:37 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 20:18:37 -0000 Subject: TOUCHE' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39367 TOUCHE! ("Tired Of Ugly and Hard-to-swallow Expositions") Scabbers isn't a spy or a shape-changer or anything significant or exciting like that. He's just a rat. A kid's pet rat. Snape was never a follower of Voldemort. He is one mean and nasty guy all right, but he is also a man of honor and integrity, and no one with a sense of honor or integrity would *ever* have followed Voldemort, because Voldemort is Evil. Neville is *not* Sneaky!Neville. He is a timid, insecure, disorganized little kid with weak magical powers who is always open and straightforward and honest about himself. He is incapable of deceit, and the very notion that he might be hiding anything about himself from his fellow students is therefore fundamentally absurd. ----- Oh. Did I mention that this was TOUCHE circa August, 1999? I heard all three of these statements made in retort to certain fan speculations before the release of _PoA._ (For that matter, even though we now all know that Neville *does* keep secrets, my own reading of him as Sneaky!Neville is still not at all a popular interpretation of his character.) All that said, though, I do happen to agree overall with Prefect Marcus' interpretations, with the possible exception of Snape's "mission." I certainly agree that it wouldn't make very much *sense* for Snape to be sent back to Voldemort as a spy, but I can't say that it would surprise me very much if he were. Sometimes JKR just doesn't think these things through quite as carefully as we do, you know. ;-) Also, while I don't think that Draco "loves" Hermione, I do think that he's got a secret crush on her. And while I'll find it a bit disappointing, it won't surprise me in the least if Snape turns out to have loved Lily. -- Elkins, who agrees that Snape is a "mean ugly shnook," but who would also like to point out that he is *our* mean ugly shnook. From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Mon Jun 3 20:21:21 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 20:21:21 -0000 Subject: Lupin is an honest, nasty, DISLOYAL person (who is ever so evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39368 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > WARNING: This post is seriously twisted. It was going to be a > TBay, but the more I thought about it, the more canon I found. I > don't like it. But, God and JKR help me, it fits. > Yup. Lupin is ever so evil. > > There's just one thing I want you to do. > Talk me out of it! > > Pippin Whooo! Nice one! Been trying to think of some counter-arguments, and it's getting more and more difficult. Not only does Lupin call Voldemort by his name; he calls him 'Lord' as well. Teaching Harry Patronus; this is extremely advanced magic that Harry shouldn't be able to manage. Is he trying to see how strong Harry is? Or is he trying to ruin his confidence by giving him something too difficult? About James: 'We were friends *at Hogwarts*.' [my emphasis] (PoA UK Hardback p. 179) Harry doesn't notice Lupin in his parent's wedding pictures. Out of James's three friends; one is a wolf, one is a rat, one is a dog. Only the dog is a symbol of loyalty. A rat is an obvious symbol of betrayal; a wolf is a symbol of danger (British mythology) (as in 'throw to the wolves'). All the DADA teachers would then be in disguise or faking; they would all be evil at heart. Snape: Lupin loses *no* opportunity to reduce Snape's standing in Harry's eyes (apart from admitting to Snape's ability with potions, which is undeniable). It is Lupin who says Snape was jealous of James's ability on the Quiddich pitch, Lupin who says Snape outed him because of the loss of the Order of Merlin. (Snape's suspicions about DADA teachers have otherwise been spot on. He knew about Quirrel, regarded Lockhart with contempt and was very wary of Moody.) Lupin is *extremely* calm about Dark Creatures. Oh, and his comments about Dementors are very interesting; (PoA, UK hardback p. 140) "If it can, the Dementor will feed on you long enough to reduce you to something like itself - souless and evil." and then a page later: "I don't pretend to be an expert at fighting Dementors, Harry - quite the contrary..." Like Moody he confiscates the Marauders Map. This is the only counter- argument atm, because surely he should know that it reveals true names. Or has he warned Moody to grab the map off Harry as soon as possible? All the DADA teachers would then be disguised evil doers. Pip (who admits that Evil!Lupin is a lot more fun than In-Denial!Lupin) From cindysphynx at comcast.net Mon Jun 3 20:47:36 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 20:47:36 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Boggart powers (WAS: NixTheBewitchingHour, etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39369 Oh, dear. This is horrible to watch! A consensus is building that JKR's handling of boggarts is *FLINT- y*! Worse, far worse, is the idea that Lupin is a bit of a *head case*. His lycanthropy is all in his mind, I'm hearing. Harry is coming unhinged, too -- he sees the lights dim and be rekindled, but Harry is doing it himself and doesn't even know it. Elkins wrote: >I don't really believe that the boggarts can simulate the abilities > or powers of the forms that they take. If such were the case, >then I find it *very* difficult to believe that anyone would >consider it appropriate to teach children how to banish them in a >classroom setting, particularly only one year after a basilisk had >been preying on students in that same school. What if a basilisk >had turned out to be some kid's personal bogey? Not at all >unlikely, only one year after _CoS._ And that would have been >good, wouldn't it? Half of the class would have been *dead* before >anyone could manage to stammer out a "Riddikulus." Yes, this could be trouble. If boggarts really do have the powers of the thing they impersonate, then Lupin's lesson plan could use a tune-up. After all, the boggart could have become anything, including an AK-wielding Voldemort or a dementor set on kissing Harry. Fortunately, JKR thought of this and worked it all out for us. Se's really very thorough that way. The answer is right there in black and white. See, boggarts can undoubtedly take on certain powers of the thing they impersonate. Canon tells us that, and if we try to wriggle away, we will be hit with a gigantic yellow flag, and it will *hurt*. So how does Lupin's lesson plan make sense? Because Lupin knows that Boggarts cannot actually work any Dark Magic themselves. Oh, sure, they can change the temperature. They can dim lights. But they aren't Dark Creatures themselves (they aren't anywhere to be found in Fantastic Beasts, after all). They can't petrify people, suck out their souls, or work Unforgivable Curses. So there was never any *real* danger in Lupin's class or in his anti-dementor lessons with Harry. Dicey: > > That the boggart Dementor can do dementor things is what seems > > weird to me. Elkins: > I don't think that it can, really. I think that it's all > psychosomatic. If Harry hadn't already known from his experience >on the train what the dementors could do to him, then the boggart > wouldn't have had at all the same effect. I agree that if Harry had never heard of a dementor, the boggart wouldn't have turned into a dementor. But that's only because the dementor wouldn't have been Harry's greatest fear. The dementor would have simply become something else for Harry. Elkins: > [Harry's] dimming the lights > himself through unconscious magic, in precisely the same way that > Neville is always melting all of those cauldron bottoms in Snape's > Potions Class. Well . . . I dunno. In all other cases of Harry's spontaneous magic, Harry knows full well that he performed spontaneous magic. Before he knew he was a wizard, he didn't understand *how* he did it, but he knew he did it. And when he blew up Aunt Marge, he knew what he had done. Also, in each case of spontaneous magic, Harry *wanted* the spontaneous magic to happen, IIRC. He wanted his hair to grow, he wanted the snake to visit Brazil, he wanted to get away from the boys who chased him, and he *desperately* wanted to get even with Marge. I doubt that Harry wanted the lights to dim. So if Harry were dimming the lights himself, he'd know it, and he probably would stop himself from doing it. Nah, I think the boggart is dimming the lights and that they really are dimming and being re-kindled, just like Harry reports. Cindy From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 3 20:56:50 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 20:56:50 -0000 Subject: Lupin is an honest, nasty, DISLOYAL person (who is ever so evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39370 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > > > Yup. Lupin is ever so evil. > > > > There's just one thing I want you to do. > > Talk me out of it! Pip said: >>>> Like Moody he confiscates the Marauders Map. This is the only counter-argument atm, because surely he should know that it reveals true names. Or has he warned Moody to grab the map off Harry as soon as possible?<<< Crouch!Moody, having been warned about the map, is in little danger from it. He knows Harry will see only a dot labelled Bartemius Crouch. This would be a problem if Harry and Crouch!Moody were face to face with the map between them, but C!M takes great care to keep *that* from happening. We don't know how far the magical eye can see, but it's a safe bet that Crouch thought it would warn him in time to complete an escape if Harry came after him with the Map. He's got Moody's invisibility cloak to hide under, too. It won't keep him from showing up on the map, but it would keep Harry from seeing that he doesn't look like Barty. It's more of a problem that Lupin gives the map back to Harry in the first place. Could it be that Filch was right and it does harbor some dark magic? Harry did worry about that, and so does Snape. Why did Filch think the map was highly dangerous, if he didn't know what it did? Where *does* it keep its brain? Pippin From ameliagoldfeesh at yahoo.com Mon Jun 3 22:28:02 2002 From: ameliagoldfeesh at yahoo.com (ameliagoldfeesh) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 22:28:02 -0000 Subject: POA Timeline and Lupin is DISLOYAL (TBayish) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39371 >Aldrea said "Now, if someone wanted to go through the last few chapters of PoA and figure out how the hours measure up..." >> Hollydaze already did that for you (nearly minute by minute) back on post 32882 and I believe she was L.O.O.N.ed for it too. I remember I was newer then and I recall thinking "these people are *insane*!" In the best possible sense, of course. :) I realize Pippin doesn't want backed up with can(n)on..even hypothetical can(n)on...but look at Remus J. Lupin's middle initial. He is the only major character in book canon to have a middle name hinted at. Opening up Bullfinch's Mythology to the "J" index...a-ha- the first name listed "Janus". The two-faced god. Two-faced as in *deceiving*. Errr...okay...Janus is actually just a protector, a guardian of gates and sounds like a basically all-around good guy for a Roman god. But, but JKR for once followed popular media instead of myth- GoldenEye. In which Bond's (Pierce Brosnan) nemesis is named Janus. While watching this movie she is mentally casting for the movies of her as yet unwritten books..."Coltrane would be perfect for Hagrid...and who could play DeadSexy!Sirius? Who could possibly counter the Alan RIckman Effect (TM)?" A Goldfeesh Word of warning: the last paragraph is totally made-up except for Heather Moore's Alan Rickman Effect from the Movie list ( #650). From huntleyl at mssm.org Mon Jun 3 22:30:55 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 18:30:55 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione and Krum References: Message-ID: <006901c20b4e$568979c0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 39372 Pippin said: What's Hermione playing at with Viktor > anyway? Is anybody really comfortable about her being in a > relationship with a seventeen year old boy? Irene: >>>>Yes, I'm comfortable with what we have seen so far. >She really needed someone who respects her love of learning >and sees her on her own and not as a part of the trio.<<< AV: >>>>I think she's "playing at" acknowledging the first good-looking boy who's ever responded to her _as a girl_ (not really counting Neville, who I think she feels too 'maternal/teacherly' towards to ever consider romantically)straightforwardly and in a complimentary fashion (unlike Ron's dithering). It's not totally "mature" I guess but I can't say I blame her. She's probably curious to learn more about Durmstrang and Bulgaria, too. Nothingwrong with that either. They're _both_ at an age for short-lived experimental dating--cut 'em some slack.<<<< Zo?: >>>What relationship? They went on a date to the Ball. And, as Hermione is the only non-Durmstrang person Viktor seems to have any contact with, she waschosen as his "most=missed" person for the 2nd challenge. But relationship? To my recollection, there isn't any contact between Herminone and Krum afterthe Ball. It doesn't seem like she agreed to go to meet him for the summer. It just doesn't smell like a relationship to me, at least from Hermione's state of mind.<<<<< Pippin: >This all goes to prove my point: it could be a problem if Viktor's ?feelings for Hermione are as intense as they seem to be. Maybe >they aren't, of course; there's always narrative twist. Still, The >Second Task happens after the ball, and that's when Viktor tells >her he's "never felt this way about anyone else." Experimental >flings and mature attitudes are all very well, but he's of age, by >the laws of his world, and she isn't. Whatever it is, it's not a >relationship of equals. How can you be so sure? In my experience, the only way relationships of this type are unequal is if the younger member (in this case the girl) is head-over-heels in love/adoration with the older member. That's not Hermione at all...in fact, I believe her anti-fan-girl attitude is what drew Krum to her to begin with (besides her intelligence and (dubious?) physical attractiveness).. Which leads me to believe that he's definitely the submissive type in a relationship (and I mean that in a totally non-S&M kind of way)...honestly, if he wanted a relationship in which he had all the power, he would have had no problem getting it. But he didn't want that, did he? No, he went straight for the one girl in Hogwarts who *wasn't* going to give him an inch, let alone let him walk all over her. At that age range it's all in the attitude. It's a sad, but true, fact that in any relationship the person who cares the least has the most power -- and in this case, that person is Hermione. >I'm sure Viktor is a gentleman with Hermione. But it would be >kind of odd if Viktor had such intense feelings and they didn't >have an erotic component, even if it's only a wistful fantasy about >what she'll be like when she's as mature and sophisticated as >she looked on the night of the ball. (If not, he's considerably less >imaginative than a lot of our list members!) Sure, but I just don't think it's an issue...and believe me, I'm the first person to get up in arms about inappropriate relationships.. I know JKR often writes the trio as younger than they actually are, but the fact remains that some of you adultish types seem to underestimating the worldliness of girls in the 14/15 age range...Trust me, they aren't as innocent as they seem, and they've got iron wills. I'm sure Hermione knows *exactly* what she's doing/getting into and has weighed the situation accordingly. Like I said before, if Hermione idolized Krum, I'd be worried...but she does nothing of the sort. She can barely give him the time of day, really. >Hermione doesn't, or shouldn't, have to deal with that. She >doesn't have to set any boundaries with Viktor. She can rightfully >expect him to do it for her. However, learning to manage her >feelings is part of what she needs to do in order to become a >responsible adult, so, in a way, she's dodging the issue as >much as Ron is. Your logic seems a little sketchy to me here. And, anyway, again -- does Hermione seem like the kind of girls to let *others* set the boundaries for her? Heck no. And she's all ready pretty fair at managing her feelings. >I'm sure at the Ball Hermione felt as if she'd sailed right past the >awkward transition from girl to woman without ever going >through it. But that's not the real her, not yet. She was pretending >that night. Whether you think she's fourteen or fifteen, she >couldn't keep up the illusion for very long. "Standing ten feet >apart, they were bellowing at each other, each scarlet in the >face"..."her hair was coming down now out of its elegant bun and >her face was screwed up in anger." That's JKR showing us >Hermione isn't quite up to her image. What?? A mature young woman's image is automatically out the window if she yells at her best friend for being a petty, vicious idiot to her?? (sorry Ron.) And IMO, I think Hermione knew better than anyone else that night that she was *pretending*...if not, we would have seen her desperately trying hold on to the "image" afterwards...which she didn't BTW. She was perfectly frank with Harry about how she managed the hair -- and how it was too much work to do everyday. I remember the night of eight grade graduation -- it was a pretty big deal for my small, nearly all-girl class...I got my hair done by my hairdresser and wore what amounted to a *very* no-frills prom dress (one of my friends had this big poofy thing that looked like a wedding dress)... The compliments were great and I definitely walked a little straighter for the evening...but I never for one second thought that This Was It...like I was finished growing up now or anything..it was a nice feeling while it lasted, but I knew that tomorrow my hair would be hanging down my back again -- unbrushed, and my clothing wouldn't fit quite right, and everything would be the same as it was before. And Hermione's got to be at least a hundred times more sensible than me. >I feel bad for Viktor. There's a real potential for Hermione to hurt >him. I don't think she's leading him on deliberately, but she's too >young and inexperienced, IMO, to realize she might be doing it >inadvertently. Probably, but that's life, you know? He's only 17...heck, *I'm* 17..I certainly expect to be hurt several times over in the course of my dating career...They're *both* young. It's nearly inevitable at that age that all your relationships are going to be relatively short and end painfully -- that's all there is to it. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From huntleyl at mssm.org Mon Jun 3 22:39:20 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 18:39:20 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sensitive!Harry References: Message-ID: <008a01c20b4f$80eaf940$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 39373 Jenny_from_ravenclaw: >Here I must jump in to defend my dear Harry. I think Harry has been >extremely courteous to Colin Creevey who, IMO, has been more than >annoying in CoS. I would call him a nuisance. Following Harry >around, staring at his scar, snapping photos of Harry while Harry is >at Quidditc practice... Colin is invasive and inconsiderate of Harry >and his privacy. Colin is no friend of Harry's and certainly doesn't >want to be. What he is interested in is the fact that Harry is >"Famous Harry Potter", much like Draco was when he met Harry for the >second time on the train. I think Colin is the one who needs to have >some courtesy, and I think Harry has been consistently more polite >than necessary to Colin. Additionally...one of the times Harry was *most* "abrupt" with Colin was when Ron accidentally cursed himself and was puking slugs...Colin asked Harry to hold him (Ron) up so he could get a *picture* for jimminy cricket's sake. Kid really needs to *learn*. Laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From itskimmy at yahoo.com Mon Jun 3 21:20:31 2002 From: itskimmy at yahoo.com (itskimmy) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 21:20:31 -0000 Subject: Lupin is an honest, nasty, DISLOYAL person (who is ever so evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39374 Re: Lupin is an honest, nasty, DISLOYAL person (who is ever so evil) > pippin said: > >>It's more of a problem that Lupin gives the map back to Harry in > the first place. Could it be that Filch was right and it does harbor some dark magic? >> I just wanted to say that wouldn't it have been easier for Lupin, if he is a supporter of Lord Voldemort, to keep the map and pass it to Crouch Jr. himself? It does not make sense for him to return it to Harry if he knows it will reveal Crouch Jr. real identity. If the map did contain some form of dark magic then it would make us wonder what exactly James Potter, Black, Lupin and Pettigrew were up to and which side they were on, although we now know Pettigrew is a deatheater. IMO Lupin is not evil, just a bit scary at certain times of the month. Anyway, Hello I'm new here. Kim From katgirl at lava.net Mon Jun 3 22:57:43 2002 From: katgirl at lava.net (booklovinggirl) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 22:57:43 -0000 Subject: Lupin is an honest, nasty, DISLOYAL person (who is ever so evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39375 Pippin, on Sirius, Remus, and their loyalty to Dumbledore: > This is a red flag. JKR wouldn't create two characters with the > same narrative function. Only one of them can be the > scapegoat--the other is guilty, guilty, guilty. It can't be Sirius. > Everybody in the wizarding world thinks he dunnit. It's Harry's > quest to clear his name. Ah, but Remus *is* a scapegoat to the WW. He's a werewolf, after all, a Dark Creature, and perhaps in the nastier position. Sirius can get his name cleared. There is no cure for lycanthropy, and it doesn't appear to be coming in the near future. > This explains all the Lupin mysteries...why he didn't tell > Dumbledore about Sirius or the map, Remus has admitted to being wrong about this, not wanting to incriminate the Marauders, because it would lead to the Animagi adventures, which would add up to "I betrayed you when I was a student." Of course, if you are set on believing that he is Ever So Evil, you could say that he was lying. > Why he's so calm and > unhurried in the shack, Okay, I don't have an answer for this...you'll have to go to the Witching Hour people to help with that. > Why he insists that Sirius and he have to > tell the whole story, Do you think that Harry, Hermione and Ron would have believed them otherwise? Harry was ready to *kill* Sirius, Hermione was accusing Remus of helping Sirius kill Harry, and Ron was telling Sirius "You'll have to kill all of us." If I were cornered by three hysterical teenagers, I'd want to make sure they knew exactly what was going on as well! > Why he left the map where Snape could find > it. If Snape had any bloody sense, he would have noticed the dot labled "Peter Pettigrew." But you're right, it would've been smarter to hide the map or, better yet, bring it down to the Shack. > It explains why Crouch!Moody is so good at teaching DADA. Wouldn't Crouch!Moody's skill in teaching DADA come from the fact that he's been involved in the Dark Arts themselves? We don't know nearly enough about Crouch!Moody before Voldemort-is it possible he was a prefect? Student teacher? > I say Lupin is a servant of Voldemort. Where did he go after > James and Lily died? To Albania perhaps? Equipped with a > wand but unable to aid his master because of his condition? > Lupin could hardly tend to baby Voldie's needs in wolf form, after > all. Apologies for being pedantic, but canon seems to suggest that Voldemort wasn't always in Albania: "What interests *me* the most," said Dumbledore gently, "is how Lord Voldemort managed to enchang Ginny when my sources tell me he is currently in hiding in the forests of Albania." -CoS, Chapter Eighteen, American hardcover. It also seems to indicate that it took a long time for Voldemort to even gather the strength to go into his baby form: "I remember only forcing myself, sleeplessly, endlessly, second by second, to exist....I settled in a faraway place, in a forest, and I waited....Surely, one of my faithful Death Eaters would try and find me...one of them would come and perform the magic I could not to restore me to a body..." -GoF, Chapter Thirty-Three, American hardcover. Of course, part of the GoF quote interferes with the CoS one. Voldemort DID say he waited in a faraway forest-possibly in Albania. > But then Sirius escapes Azkaban. And Voldemort sends > Lupin to find and murder Sirius who killed his servant Peter. > Lupin and Voldie don't know that Peter is alive, of course. Wait, I'm confused here. Voldie has read the article that says Sirius is at large, right? And this article (Or the one in the American PoA hardcover, anyway.) is rather vague. It only tells us that Sirius has escaped, and that both Muggles and Wizards are on the lookout for him. Why wouldn't Voldemort know that Peter is alive? And if Remus really was passing information to Voldemort, wouldn't he have brought up the "He's at Hogwarts." mutterings? They would have figured that either Peter is alive, in which case Voldemort would want him dead for his cowardice and incompetence, or that Sirius is after Dumbledore/Harry/Snape/Someone else altogether and unless the Someone else is a very loyal servant to Voldemort, I think Voldemort would have just sat back and watched them die. This makes me think of another possibility. What if Remus is a double- agent? Working for Dumbledore as a spy, or even passing falsities and real spy reports to *both sides*. The second possibility is more interesting, but the first one seems more likely in light of Lily and James being dead. I doubt that Snape would be the *only* one spying for Voldemort-that isn't exactly an airtight plan. What if there are other, undiscovered, spies in Voldemort's inner circle? It doesn't seem that far-fetched, if you think about it.... > Now I tried to dismiss this theory. I told myself it wouldn't fly > without a honking big pink flamingo of a clue. Unfortunately there > is one. > > ****"When they get near me--" Harry stared at Lupin's desk, his > throat tight. "I can hear Voldemort murdering my mum." > > Lupin made a sudden motion with his arm as though to grip > Harry's shoulder, but thought better of it."*****PoA Ch. 10 > > Yep, Lupin is extremely reluctant to touch Harry, not surprising > since the last Voldemort employee who tried it got fried. Better > wait till Harry is unconscious and try it then. PoA Ch. 12 Why would unconciousness make any difference? I would think that Harry's ability to fry DE's would be made stronger if he had just heard his parent's voices, not because of the protection itself, but really just by the effect this has on Harry. Personally, I don't think this points to Remus being evil anymore than the gleam at the end of GoF does at Dumbledore being evil. > But Lupin taught Harry to fight the Dementors. > > Yeah, just like Moody taught Harry to fight Imperius. But not > because Dumbledore made him. . Imagine the villain-tells-all > scene where Lupin explains just how much he enjoyed watching > Harry live through the agony of his parents' deaths, over and over > and over again. (shudder) Ah, yes, but if we're going to go back to the One is Scapegoat, One is Guilty Guilty Guilty formula at the beginning of this post, Remus is the Scapegoat. Of course, I did contradict the Scapegoat/Guilty at the beginning of the post, so I'm not really in any position to point this out. > He does have one rather frightening hobby: he makes pets out of > Dark Creatures and then kills them. We know what happened to > the Boggart in the wardrobe. But what happened to the > Grindylow, eh? Why put in the detail of the empty case? (shiver) Hmmm. This is interesting. Perhaps a bit of torment about being a Dark Creature, a werewolf? Or maybe he sends him to Hagrid. Or maybe Pippin's right and he's a sadist. > Sirius Black never planned to murder Snape. Lupin did. And > Lupin hates Harry, just the way he's hated James, ever since > James thwarted his beautiful plan. > > Of all the Marauders, Lupin has the best reason to want Snape > dead, since he has the most to lose if his secret is revealed. He > doesn't think he'll be blamed...the werewolf did it, not him. Ah, but if Remus didn't want Snape to know, why did he set up the Prank in the first place? He might have just wanted to finish Snape off but had a plan that backfired, but you say that Remus wants to finish off Snape because he's scared Snape will reveal the secret, right? But how can he be scared of this if Snape *doesn't know* the secret? > Sirius chases off after Pettigrew and then, mysteriously, > hundreds of Dementors appear and attack Sirius, Hermione, > Harry and Ron. > > Think about it. There've been people wandering around the > grounds all night. Snape, Fudge, MacNair, Dumbledore, Hagrid, > Tt!Harry and Tt!Hermione . The Dementors don't bother any of > them. Then all of a sudden there are hundreds. Why? Because > werewolf!Lupin set the Dementors on our heroes. (shiver!) Can > the Dementors tell when they're dealing with a human mind in a > canid body? They can't. Well, then how did he get them to go after Sirius? He can't communicate when he's transformed. > But the plan fails. Tt!Harry conjures Prongs (how horrifying for > Evil!Lupin), then Snape comes around and takes Sirius up to the > castle. Lupin has no choice but to spend the night in the forest. > But, as he tells Hagrid, he didn't bite anyone. How Lupin would > know that, if he was out of his mind that night, we aren't told. You got me on this one. However, Hagrid doesn't think it's odd that Remus would know, and even though others might disagree with me, I think that Hagrid's judgement can be trusted on this. -Katherine From naama_gat at hotmail.com Mon Jun 3 22:58:53 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 22:58:53 -0000 Subject: Lupin is an honest, nasty, DISLOYAL person (who is ever so evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39376 Pippin puts forward a truly chilling theory: > Yup. Lupin is ever so evil. >Don't get me wrong. I don't like this. I really don't like this. It's heartbreaking. Only, that's what evil is, right? Frodo doesn't really understand the power of Mordor till he sees Hobbiton in >ruins. >No. No, no, no? That's what Luke Skywalker said. And he felt angry and sad and horribly betrayed. So do I. >This explains all the Lupin mysteries...why he didn't tell Dumbledore about Sirius or the map, why he's so calm and unhurried in the shack, why he insists that Sirius and he have to tell the whole story, why he left the map where Snape could find it. It explains why Crouch!Moody is so good at teaching DADA. It >even explains The Prank. >I say Lupin is a servant of Voldemort. Where did he go after James and Lily died? To Albania perhaps? Equipped with a wand but unable to aid his master because of his condition? Lupin could hardly tend to baby Voldie's needs in wolf form, after all. But then Sirius escapes Azkaban. And Voldemort sends Lupin to find and murder Sirius who killed his servant Peter. >Lupin and Voldie don't know that Peter is alive, of course. Me: OK, Pippin. I think I've got something here: It doesn't make sense that Voldemort would send Lupin to kill Sirius. He would have no other motive than to avenge Peter, and what does he care about Peter? What does he care about any of his enemies or allies? As we have seen, he would just as soon Crucio the one as the other. No, if Lupin was in Albania, Voldemort's faithful follower, he wouldn't be wasted on such a foolish, sentimental mission. Voldemort would have found much more useful things for him to do. Such as finding a loyal DE and bringing him to Albania (so he could take care of baby Voldemort). Also, when Voldemort describe his long years as Noxious Gas, he says: "And then, not even a year ago, when I had almost abandoned hope, it happened at last ... a servant returned to me: Wormtail here ... " (GoF, graveyard scene) But if Lupin had already been there, then it had happened once before - that a servant returned to him. But he says, "it happened at last", meaning it hadn't happened until then (right?). Pippin: >Now I tried to dismiss this theory. I told myself it wouldn't fly without a honking big pink flamingo of a clue. Unfortunately there is one. >****"When they get near me--" Harry stared at Lupin's desk, his throat tight. "I can hear Voldemort murdering my mum." >Lupin made a sudden motion with his arm as though to grip Harry's shoulder, but thought better of it."*****PoA Ch. 10 Yep, Lupin is extremely reluctant to touch Harry, not surprising since the last Voldemort employee who tried it got fried. Better >wait till Harry is unconscious and try it then. PoA Ch. 12 Me: Yeah, but come on, that was because Voldemort was inhabiting his body. And Voldemort knows this. He says (GoF, graveyard scene): "His [Harry's] mother died in the attempt to save him - and unwittingly provided him with a protection I admit I had not foreseen ... I could not touch the boy". And then he runs "one of his long white fingers" on Harry's cheek. That means that Voldemort identified the protection Harry's mother gave him as specifically against himself, not a general protection from enemies as such, DEs or whatever. No, the protection is only against Voldemort, and he knows it. If Lupin is doing Voldemort's bidding then he would know this as well. Pippin: >But Lupin taught Harry to fight the Dementors. >Yeah, just like Moody taught Harry to fight Imperius. But not because Dumbledore made him. . Imagine the villain-tells-all scene where Lupin explains just how much he enjoyed watching Harry live through the agony of his parents' deaths, over and over >and over again. (shudder) Me: But, at that scene, Lupin is described as "paler than usual." I don't do a lot of gloating, so I wouldn't know - is pallor a normal reaction? In any case, it's not exactly the conventional description, is it? If Lupin is gloating at that point, the "paler than usual" is unfair misdirection, IMO. There are two other descriptions that weigh (IMO) against Evil!Lupin theroy. a) Lupin is described as having a twinkle in his eyes (p. 268). This isn't proof, obviously, but I can only remember Dumbledore and Hagrid twinkling. Who else twinkles (only eyes! Lockhart, AFAIR, has twinkling teeth). [Does Crouch!Moody ever twinkle?] b) In the Shack, Lupin speaks with "self-disgust" in his voice when describing how he failed, again, Dumbledore's trust. I can't think of any reason why Evil!Lupin should feel self-disgust at this point, can you? Isn't evil, by definition, remorseless? >Well there you have it. There's just one thing I want you to do. >Talk me out of it! Well, Pippin, hope this helps! ;-) Naama From huntleyl at mssm.org Mon Jun 3 23:05:51 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 19:05:51 -0400 Subject: More about Ron, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hurt-Comfort and reader crushes References: <003401c20aae$ebec14a0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> <428230628.20020602220541@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <008f01c20b53$352c9320$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 39377 I said: > Plus, it doesn't beginning to make up the whole thing with the Krum > doll for me...that part always made me feel *very* uneasy.. Susanne queried: >Why is that? Well, you know.. Wait. It *didn't* bother you. *looks at Susanne in awe*. I mean, I guess I would be uncomfortable having a toy (or a painting, etc.) such as the ones in the Potterverse...I mean..Harry's dragon seemed almost *sentient* (for a dragon)...and the paintings are certainly just as human as any of the ghosts...It seems allot different than having say..a battery operated mannequin or something.. I guess Ron might not feel this way -- having been accustomed to such things..but still..mutilating it like that...It shows allot of hate, in my opinion...esp. in the wizarding world -- where magic is an everyday thing..I mean, think about it...voodoo. >What would have been an appropriate way of dealing with his >feelings in your opinion? Well, the best way, really, would be to admit that he has feelings for Hermione and work them out in a mature, sensible way with her instead of venting his frustration into hatred for Krum.. However, that's probably a little too much "perfect" for a 14 year old boy, so I'd settle at least for a more controlled attitude about it all.. I guess I don't feel that the *extent* of his "feelings" (read: blind hatred) are appropriate, given the situation. Really, it disturbs me. I've seen allot of similar situations amongst my friends..and none of them got quite so -- vicious about it as Ron did.. >I'd rather have someone vent their feelings in this way than >actually going and hurting the real person. Again, given the circumstances, an emotionally stable person wouldn't even *want* to hurt the actual person. Honestly, Ron's reaction to the whole Herm/Vicky thing was waaaaay over the top. I mean, I can't believe that you would suggest Ron might actually go *hurt* Krum over something like this -- if he didn't get to rip the arms off a mini-Krum..that takes Ron's mental state to a whole new level of derangededness (not a word, I know..don't mind me) for me. ick. I mean, imagine Ron..up in the dormitory all alone..slowly ripping the arms off the little Krum figure, watching its face while its limb was pulled from its socket...*shivers* >Or do you think Ron should not feel jealous at all? >Swallow it all down and pretend he's perfectly alright with >everything? Nope. Not at all. Of course, I could say that the appropriate reaction would be to go talk to Hermione about his feelings for her...but, again -- not very in character of him, really. It's really the extent of his anger that bothers me. Ever read Othello? Actually, let's take it's movie counterpart "O" as the example -- as I can't really remember the details of the play (just watched the movie a month ago or something like that)... It's like..Odin (Othello) got so incredibly unhinged..there was NO EXCUSE...really, I blame him just as much as Hugo (Iago)...More so, actually. And it scares me to think that Ron has something similar to that kind of -- rage..inside of him. Again, why *should* he be so *angry* about it all? It just doesn't add up...Yes, he's confused about his feelings for Herm -- I can see how he might be irritable and snippish with her -- while unfair, it would be very teenage boyish of him. But why is he so *angry* at her -- and Krum too...Krum didn't even *do* anything to him. >It seems, no matter what Ron does, it gets somehow turned >against him :} Well, I think that happens to all the characters to an extent...every little thing they do is picked apart here until, perhaps, the fact that it was just some little random action is totally lost in the search for *meaning*. >To me he seems perfectly likeable, despite his faults, just >like Hermione and Harry (though he has too few faults for me >to see him as real, unless his emotions get completely out >of control in a future book). I DO like Ron...I *swear* I do. However, sometimes he does things, esp. lately, that upset me...make me wonder if the all his "issues" that surfaced in GoF are completely resolved -- at least to the point where they won't get the trio in trouble in the next few books. For the most part, however..I *like* that is advice is mostly always skewed and that his temper often gets the better of him...it's *him*... laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From GerRoJen at aol.com Mon Jun 3 23:06:45 2002 From: GerRoJen at aol.com (GerRoJen at aol.com) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 19:06:45 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin is an honest, nasty, DISLOYAL person (who is ev... Message-ID: <2f.283d4bc7.2a2d5085@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39378 > > He does have one rather frightening hobby: he makes pets out of > > Dark Creatures and then kills them. We know what happened to > > the Boggart in the wardrobe. But what happened to the > > Grindylow, eh? Why put in the detail of the empty case? (shiver) Well, considering that he probably has a bit of travelling to do to get to where ever it is he is going, I imagine Lupin probably dumped the Grindylow into the lake. We find out in GoF that they inhabit the lake and are even mermish folks' pets. Cyra [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Mon Jun 3 23:17:06 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 23:17:06 -0000 Subject: Lupin is an honest, nasty, DISLOYAL person (who is ever so evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39379 > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > > Yup. Lupin is ever so evil. > > > > > > There's just one thing I want you to do. > > > Talk me out of it! > Arrgh! Somebody talk us both out of this! The more I look, the more I find... Another interesting comment; PoA, beginning of Chapter 19 Snape says "Two more for Azkaban tonight..." Lupin's reply? "You fool. Is a schoolboy grudge worth putting an innocent man back inside Azkaban?" *An* innocent man? Snape's talking about both of them; has a grudge against both of them - so where has this *an* innocent man come from? Drat! > It's more of a problem that Lupin gives the map back to Harry in > the first place. Could it be that Filch was right and it does harbor > some dark magic? Harry did worry about that, and so does > Snape. Why did Filch think the map was highly dangerous, if he > didn't know what it did? Where *does* it keep its brain? I have never liked that map. I think it's the way it's first introduced, when Harry is described as moving 'Quite suddenly, as if following orders...' (PoA UK hardback p. 145) Which always sends a shiver down my spine whenever I read it. Pip From siskiou at earthlink.net Mon Jun 3 23:33:41 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 16:33:41 -0700 Subject: More about Ron, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hurt-Comfort and reader crushes In-Reply-To: <008f01c20b53$352c9320$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> References: <003401c20aae$ebec14a0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> <428230628.20020602220541@earthlink.net> <008f01c20b53$352c9320$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: <10074720217.20020603163341@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39380 Hi, Monday, June 03, 2002, 4:05:51 PM, Laura wrote: > I mean, I can't believe that you would suggest Ron might actually go > *hurt* Krum over something like this -- if he didn't get to rip the arms > off a mini-Krum..that takes Ron's mental state to a whole new level of > derangededness (not a word, I know..don't mind me) for me. ick. Don't have time to answer this in depth atm (my daughter's homework needs doing ), but I'm starting to feel like Ron here ;) My post has been totally, utterly misunderstood and its meaning changed 8) Will get back to it much later tonight, after coming back from my evening job. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From cengle3 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 3 22:46:53 2002 From: cengle3 at yahoo.com (Charles Engle) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 15:46:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin is an honest, nasty, DISLOYAL person (who is ever so evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020603224653.42048.qmail@web12307.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39381 Pip said: >>>> Like Moody he confiscates the Marauders Map. This is the only counter-argument atm, because surely he should know that it reveals true names. Or has he warned Moody to grab the map off Harry as soon as possible?<<< Problem: GoF 25 "'Potter...' [Crouch!Moody] said slowly, ' you didn't happen, by any chance, to see who broke into Snape's office, did you? On this map, I mean?' 'Er...yeah, I did...' Harry admitted. 'It was Mr. Crouch.' Moody's magical eye whizzed over the entire surface of the map. He looked suddenly alarmed." Why, if he was told about the map by one of its co-creators, was he so surprised (or rather, alarmed) that his true identity had shown up? It doesn't fit. Also, this theory puts Lupin with Voldemort during Voldy's "dark times". " Surely, one of my faithful Death Eaters would try and find me... one of them would come and perform the magic I could not, to restore me to a body... but I waited in vain..." GoF 33. Voldemort himself says that Quirrel was the first to come along. Can you trust the bad guy? In this case, I think so; for this is his triumphant "I expect you to die, Mr. Bond" speach. Villains NEVER lie during these. Or do they? Ish (who notices everyone else puts neat little phrases in parenthesis after their name) --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Mon Jun 3 23:44:03 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 23:44:03 -0000 Subject: TOUCHE' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39382 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > TOUCHE! ("Tired Of Ugly and Hard-to-swallow Expositions") > > Scabbers isn't a spy or a shape-changer or anything significant or > exciting like that. He's just a rat. A kid's pet rat. Actually I suspected that, along with Hedwig and Crookshanks. All Rowling's animals seem to be able to understand English a little too well. I am now convinced Crookshanks is part Kneazle, and I doubt Hedwig is anything other than an owl. > Snape was never a follower of Voldemort. He is one mean and nasty > guy all right, but he is also a man of honor and integrity, and no > one with a sense of honor or integrity would *ever* have followed > Voldemort, because Voldemort is Evil. Don't know about that one. It certainly didn't surprize me in GOF when we learn the truth. > Neville is *not* Sneaky!Neville. He is a timid, insecure, > disorganized little kid with weak magical powers who is always open > and straightforward and honest about himself. He is incapable of > deceit, and the very notion that he might be hiding anything about > himself from his fellow students is therefore fundamentally absurd. I don't see him as Sneaky!Neville. He can certainly keep some things secret like extremely personal facts from his private life, but that doesn't make him sneaky. Is he? I don't know. I don't think we have enough info on that one way or the other. The Peter P equals Neville L theory is interesting, but not conclusive. > All that said, though, I do happen to agree overall with Prefect > Marcus' interpretations, with the possible exception of Snape's > "mission." I certainly agree that it wouldn't make very much *sense* > for Snape to be sent back to Voldemort as a spy, but I can't say that > it would surprise me very much if he were. Sometimes JKR just > doesn't think these things through quite as carefully as we do, you > know. ;-) Yes, unfortunately. Maybe that's why HP5 is taking so long. > > Also, while I don't think that Draco "loves" Hermione, I do think > that he's got a secret crush on her. And while I'll find it a bit > disappointing, it won't surprise me in the least if Snape turns out > to have loved Lily. > It's not impossible for Snape to have loved her, it's just that it is so unnecessary. Why multiple complications? Rowling has shown a blessed trait of keeping things tight. She slipped a bit with pseudo- Moody IMO, but nobody's perfect. > -- Elkins, who agrees that Snape is a "mean ugly shnook," but who > would also like to point out that he is *our* mean ugly shnook. Marcus, who agrees with that. :) From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Mon Jun 3 23:48:23 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 23:48:23 -0000 Subject: Lupin is an honest, nasty, DISLOYAL person (who is ever so evil) In-Reply-To: <20020603224653.42048.qmail@web12307.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39383 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Charles Engle wrote: > Also, this theory puts Lupin with Voldemort during Voldy's "dark times". > > " Surely, one of my faithful Death Eaters would try and find me... one of them would come and perform the magic I could not, to restore me to a body... but I waited in vain..." GoF 33. > > Voldemort himself says that Quirrel was the first to come along. Can you trust the bad guy? In this case, I think so; for this is his triumphant "I expect you to die, Mr. Bond" speach. Villains NEVER lie during these. > > Or do they? > > OF COURSE Voldemort is lying during this scene. Did you notice that the only Death Eater names revealed are those of the ones already 'outed' at the Post Downfall trials? Oh, and his very mild annoyance at Lucius Malfoy's supposed non- support(when Lucius was his main supporter) is more than slightly suspect as well. Face it, Harry survived the worst Voldemort could throw at him when still a baby. Since then he's survived Quirrel, the Balilisk, Tom Riddle. Even the most insane Evil Dark Lord would have a slight suspicion that just possibly killing the kid might prove to be a little difficult and perhaps he should plan to include a little misinformation in his 'I expect you to DIE, Mr. Potter' scenario. > > Ish (who notices everyone else puts neat little phrases in parenthesis after their name) Pip (who thinks the parenthesis are optional, so doesn't always put them in) From dicentra at xmission.com Tue Jun 4 00:14:36 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 00:14:36 -0000 Subject: Lupin is an honest, nasty, DISLOYAL person (who is ever so evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39384 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > WARNING: This post is seriously twisted. It was going to be a > TBay, but the more I thought about it, the more canon I found. I > don't like it. But, God and JKR help me, it fits. > Twisted!Dicentra: But, you see, I DO like it. Not because I have anything against Lupin (I don't), but because it would make such a delicious plot twist. > > Yup. Lupin is ever so evil. > He has to be: he's beloved, gentle, Dead Sexy, unassuming Lupin who was kind to Harry and who helped show that Sirius was innocent and who has that whole hurt-comfort thing going with the graying hairs and pallid demeanor. He's the last one you'd suspect (well, after McGonagall and Hagrid), so it stands to reason that he's Evil. > I say Lupin is a servant of Voldemort. Where did he go after > James and Lily died? To Albania perhaps? Equipped with a > wand but unable to aid his master because of his condition? > Lupin could hardly tend to baby Voldie's needs in wolf form, after > all. Urk. This one has can(n)ons aimed in the other direction. As Ish says, "Voldemort himself says that Quirrel was the first to come along. Can you trust the bad guy? In this case, I think so; for this is his triumphant "I expect you to die, Mr. Bond" speech. Villains NEVER lie during these." Pip thinks they do, and we certainly can't put it past Mr. Voldemort, but this time let's not. But then Sirius escapes Azkaban. And Voldemort sends > Lupin to find and murder Sirius who killed his servant Peter. > Lupin and Voldie don't know that Peter is alive, of course. Well, someone kinda poked a hole in this, too. Naama said: "OK, Pippin. I think I've got something here: It doesn't make sense that Voldemort would send Lupin to kill Sirius. He would have no other motive than to avenge Peter, and what does he care about Peter? What does he care about any of his enemies or allies? As we have seen, he would just as soon Crucio the one as the other." So Lupin isn't there to avenge Peter's death. I can dig that. But maybe he's there to kill Sirius anyway. For whatever twisted reason he has. > > ****"When they get near me--" Harry stared at Lupin's desk, his > throat tight. "I can hear Voldemort murdering my mum." > > Lupin made a sudden motion with his arm as though to grip > Harry's shoulder, but thought better of it."*****PoA Ch. 10 > > Yep, Lupin is extremely reluctant to touch Harry, not surprising > since the last Voldemort employee who tried it got fried. Better > wait till Harry is unconscious and try it then. PoA Ch. 12 And this one kinda got kicked in by Naama, too: "Yeah, but come on, that was because Voldemort was inhabiting his body. And Voldemort knows this. No, the protection is only against Voldemort, and he knows it. If Lupin is doing Voldemort's bidding then he would know this as well." But we can still save this as evidence if we surmise that Lupin was going to do something else to Harry, like shake him senseless for slandering his master, but he remembers that to do so would wreck his cover. > There's another clue, of the "can't tell you how pleased I am to > meet you" variety. > > ****"Forgive me, Remus," said Black. > "Not at all, Padfoot, old friend,"***** PoA ch. 19 > (shiver) > Ah, yes, there is no limit to the twisted interpretations of this line, is there? I'll take Pippin's, thanks. > > Think about it. There've been people wandering around the > grounds all night. Snape, Fudge, MacNair, Dumbledore, Hagrid, > Tt!Harry and Tt!Hermione . The Dementors don't bother any of > them. Then all of a sudden there are hundreds. Why? Because > werewolf!Lupin set the Dementors on our heroes. (shiver!) Can > the Dementors tell when they're dealing with a human mind in a > canid body? They can't. Well... The dementors are attracted by commotions, so they might have decided to have a look-suck, and Sirius probably fell to pieces and reverted back to a human when he ran into them, and they recognized him as their intended prey.... > Suppose Snape discovers sometime during the night that a > gobletful of potion is missing. Now he understands, but it's not > proof. It's still his word against Lupin's. Snape takes his fate in > his hands. Dumbledore may not forgive him for this, but he has > no choice. He "accidentally" forces Lupin to resign. Let's not have Snape put two and two together this time, hmm? Instead, Snape Knows Nothing. Peter Knows Nothing. Noone knows that Lupin is Evil. HEY! What if Voldemort doesn't know, either? What if Lupin is just Evil for his own reasons, and has nothing to do with Voldemort? That would be cool, too, if not all the Evil folks were DEs. So, now we've got the Old Gang lying low at Evil!Remus's place. This calls for some Serious Scary Music, I'd say. > Well there you have it. There's just one thing I want you to do. > Talk me out of it! No way! This is good stuff! --Dicentra, who, after all, digs having Harry's head come off, too From aiz24 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 4 01:01:47 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 21:01:47 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Boggart powers (wee little TBAY reference) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39385 Elkins wrote: > > Hmmm? What's that you say? You want to know about the dimming of > > the lights? > > > > Er. Yes. Well. I think *that* is probably a ::coughFLINTcough:: > > manifestation of Harry's spontaneous magic. He's dimming the > > lights himself through unconscious magic, in precisely the same way > > that Neville is always melting all of those cauldron bottoms in > > Snape's Potions Class. Pip wrote: >I'm not sure Harry is actually dimming the lights himself; or indeed >that the lights are dimming at all. Following on from >the 'psychosomatic' thought... > > The Boggart seems to have the ability to reach into people's minds >and tap into their darkest fears, taking on the appearance of those >fears. In which case the dimming of the lights and the cold are all >part of the Boggart's powers of illusion. > >Harry 'thinks' they rekindle after each Boggart attack; suppose the >reason they are alight after each attack is that they never really >went out? The cold would also be a power of illusion - the Boggart >senses that Harry associates Dementors with cold, so you get >a 'sense' of cold. Hm. It all sounds pretty fishy to me. He has the illusion of a memory of his father he's never heard before? That's a pretty thorough illusion. If it can do that, why can't it affect a werewolf? How did we get into such a twist when the obvious answer, the one my sister Faith is whispering into my ear, is that the Boggart really does do all those things a Dementor does? Because we were trying to explain why Lupin didn't transform when the Boggart turned into the moon. I think the Boggart really does a very impressive Dementor imitation, complete with doused lights and genuine cold for the classroom and nightmarish memories for Lupin (allowing those of us who particularly want to wrap our arms around him and murmur "there, there" to get our sadistic little jollies imagining what they might be) as well as ill effects for Harry. Here are a few, simpler explanations for why Lupin doesn't transform: -The Boggart doesn't have quite as much power as the real thing. You think Harry's suffering now, but it would be even worse if it were a real Dementor. This fits with the stumbling "Dementor" at the Third Task, and suggests that Lupin may have a bit of time to counteract the Boggart-moon before it works its magic on him. -Same idea, slight variation: Lycanthropy is like the tides. There's a moon in here trying to pull all werewolves into their wolf state, but outside the real moon is powerfully counteracting it with "not full moon" gravitational, as it were, vibes. Again, he would transform anyway if he didn't fight the Boggart off quickly. -Same idea, variation three: Lupin is a stronger wizard than Harry and can resist the power of a Boggart longer. Amy Z _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From cengle3 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 4 00:09:59 2002 From: cengle3 at yahoo.com (Charles Engle) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 17:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: More about Ron, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hurt-Comfort and reader crushes In-Reply-To: <008f01c20b53$352c9320$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: <20020604001000.32874.qmail@web12308.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39386 Laura Ingalls Huntley wrote: >I guess I don't feel that the *extent* of his "feelings" (read: blind >hatred) are appropriate, given the situation. Really, it disturbs >me. I've seen allot of similar situations amongst my friends..and >none of them got quite so -- vicious about it as Ron did.. I don't see it as blind hatred. More like a jealous rage. Temporary insanity, if you will. >I mean, imagine Ron..up in the dormitory all alone..slowly ripping the >arms off the little Krum figure, watching its face while its limb was >pulled from its socket...*shivers* Why do you think it was slowly? Having been a fourteen-year-old boy, I don't remember anything being slow at that age. Emotions come swift, and furious. I imagine he got up to his room, after the fight with Hermione, and saw his Krum figure. He remembered Hermione's quip about "Who's got a model of him up in their dormitory?" GoF23. He did what any jealous, hormone-raging, just-got-out-of-a-fight fourteen-year-old boy would do, he smashed it in one quick blow (or threw it against the wall), scattering pieces all over the room (including under Harry's bed). If Ron was in college, I'd agree that his actions were disturbing. But he's not. He's a fourteen-year-old (read volitile, unpredictable, moody...) adolescent. Hardly the image of mental stability. The tone of this, on re-reading, is much harsher than intended. Please do not take offense. I just really had no trouble seeing this scene play out. ish (who really hopes Laura might still talk to him after this) --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kovarsmistress at yahoo.com Tue Jun 4 00:28:25 2002 From: kovarsmistress at yahoo.com (fairladyofthedungeon) Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 00:28:25 -0000 Subject: The flying motorbike In-Reply-To: <139.eff4784.2a27cc89@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39387 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Chelsea2162 at a... wrote: > I always figured that either he had some sort of permit and >invisibility > enchantment on it (or something to that degree)....or he was just >very lucky Sirius is an outlaw, he was flying that illegal bike, flounting it. One of the reasons he didn't get caught might be that the Ministry was too busy chasing Voldemort and his supporters. In PoA, Dumbledore says that Sirius does not act like an innocent man, and maybe he never has. It might have been an influence (a minor one), a factor in him being convicted without a trial. Camilla (who has a severe - no pun intended - reader crush on Sirius) From kovarsmistress at yahoo.com Tue Jun 4 01:08:12 2002 From: kovarsmistress at yahoo.com (fairladyofthedungeon) Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 01:08:12 -0000 Subject: Farfetched theory: not Snape, but Remus was in love with Lily, jealous of James In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39388 (snips loads)Pippin's post > > ****"When they get near me--" Harry stared at Lupin's desk, his > > throat tight. "I can hear Voldemort murdering my mum." I think Remus reacts very, and more emotional to Harry hearing *Lily's* voice than he does to anything else in PoA. Can't quote 'cause I don't have the book here, but that is a vague sign, the basis for my unsteady theory about Remus having been in love with Lily. > > Sirius Black never planned to murder Snape. Lupin did. That sounds very plausible if you believe Remus is evil, don't want to do that, but can't help it. But I don't think he really cared one bit about *Snape*, Snape was just *meat to be wasted*, Remus would not be held responsible in his werewolf state, and James and Sirius would have been blamed, and probably expelled, if things had worked out according to *plan*. Somehow I believe Remus loves/hates Harry, with James' looks and Lily's eyes. I think it is mentioned that he is looking at Harry in a *weird* way several times. He might want Harry killed to end his own torment, and dote on him at the same time when he is reminiscent about Lily. Camilla (who loves Snape enough not to want him to be a vampire) From suzchiles at pobox.com Tue Jun 4 01:22:54 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 18:22:54 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The flying motorbike In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39389 Or perhaps the law that Arthur Weasley wrote had not been written yet. Zoe > Sirius is an outlaw, he was flying that illegal bike, flounting it. > One of the reasons he didn't get caught might be that the Ministry > was too busy chasing Voldemort and his supporters. In PoA, Dumbledore > says that Sirius does not act like an innocent man, and maybe he > never has. It might have been an influence (a minor one), a factor in > him being convicted without a trial. > Camilla (who has a severe - no pun intended - reader crush on Sirius) From siskiou at earthlink.net Tue Jun 4 01:29:08 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 18:29:08 -0700 Subject: More on Ron Message-ID: <12481648676.20020603182908@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39390 Hi, I just threw down a few thoughts before work, so things might be a bit diconnected! Monday, June 03, 2002, 4:05:51 PM, Laura wrote: >> Plus, it doesn't beginning to make up the whole thing with the Krum >> doll for me...that part always made me feel *very* uneasy.. Imo JKR has made it quite clear that this Krum figure is a model, not a sentient being with feelings or a voodoo doll, somehow connected to Krum himself. Honestly, let's look at real life here! If JKR had had Ron seek out Hermione for a calm and collected talk about his feelings, I would have put the book aside and looked for something else to read. While there might be a few teenagers who could and would have all the insights to do this, the vast majority (including Hermione and Harry) could not. And concerning my suggesting Ron should go and hurt Krum himself instead of the toy (which I never did), I meant that it is quite common for kids that age to actually do stuff like that and I was proud of Ron that he didn't confront Krum. Kids (and adults) do think hateful thoughts and that's perfectly alright as long as they realize it's not alright to go and do hurtful things to their object of hate. I don't think there's anyone around in the whole world who can claim they've never thought about how they would like to get back at somebody who insulted them or hurt their feelings (and yes, Ron's feelings are hurt here, even if Krum doesn't have a clue that he's partially the reason for it). > I guess I don't feel that the *extent* of his "feelings" (read: blind > hatred) are appropriate, given the situation. Really, it disturbs me. > I've seen allot of similar situations amongst my friends..and none of > them got quite so -- vicious about it as Ron did.. How do you know what they do in private? If Harry hadn't found the ripped off arm, nobody would have ever known about it, either. And Ron may have even regretted later what he did in a moment of fury, but we are not privy to his thoughts. Anyway, I don't see Ron's reaction here as an abnormal one, in fact, to me it seems pretty common. I've worked with kids from age 3-17 in the past, and no, they were not juvenile delinquents :) > I mean, I can't believe that you would suggest Ron might actually go > *hurt* Krum over something like this -- if he didn't get to rip the arms > off a mini-Krum..that takes Ron's mental state to a whole new level of > derangededness (not a word, I know..don't mind me) for me. ick. > > I mean, imagine Ron..up in the dormitory all alone..slowly ripping the > arms off the little Krum figure, watching its face while its limb was > pulled from its socket...*shivers* LOL! Maybe I'm not quite as involved with the storyline, but I imagined it more as a quick rage kind of thing, not slow "torture". Seriously, don't you remember your childhood? Have you truly never been angry enough to storm off and throw something against the wall or yell at your parents and then regretted it right away? Even the calmest kids I know have their moments, especially when puberty starts to enter the picture. And I think it would be unhealthy to teach children that even *thinking* angry thoughts is "bad". That can do some serious damage imo, because it's frankly impossible! Even adults don't have their feelings and thoughts under that much control. While Ron has a temper, he doesn't go out of his way to insult for example Draco. He react when provoked, but doesn't seek out confrontations. He could have definitely handled things a bit better in GoF, but I really don't see him as anything but a pretty typical, clueless about the relationship stuff, teenage boy. It certainly doesn't change my view of him being an overall pretty darn nice guy, with a few problems that he'll probably tackle with time. It's not like he doesn't have feelings of inadequacy to tangle with. As a guy who doesn't have much in the way of money or fame to offer, how do you think he feels, thinking he needs to compete with a famous (and rich?) quidditch player? He already is pretty insecure (the way I see it) and while he could try and do something about distinguishing himself, this isn't as easy as it sounds. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From elfundeb at aol.com Tue Jun 4 01:45:22 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 21:45:22 EDT Subject: TBAY: MATCHINGARMCHAIR Message-ID: <15d.ed54640.2a2d75b2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39391 Debbie is lying on the deck of the Parallel Universe Fourth Man hovercraft, lost in reveries which were awakened without warning when she began to play the Beatles' White Album backwards. Her youth has come back all too clearly now, days when there was no Potterverse to analyze, days spent trying to play records backwards and scrutinizing album covers for tiny clues . . . he's barefoot, like a corpse . . . look at the license plate -- 27IF! -- he would have been 27 now . . . The reverie is suddenly interrupted by Charis Julia, who, with one well-aimed kick, sends the CD player whizzing through the air, till, Splash! It hits the waves of Theory Bay with an almighty upheaval of water. Upon hitting the Bay, the screech of the CD player abruptly ceases, replaced by the clear voice of John Lennon saying "Paul is dead. Miss him." growing ever softer as the CD player sinks through the depths until Silence settles once more on the Bay. Oh, phew. But Charis breaks the silence: "What makes us so sure, Debbie, that Neville at the Gryffindor celebration party is really sitting there thinking "Hang on. Better be sure of exactly what I'm going to say before I open my mouth. Right. First thing's first. Now, I hear the Egg right there in front of me. Lets just imagine the sound of my parents being tortured and then compare the results." Debbie stares at Charis. Did Charis really think she meant that? Who can think clearly with all that screeching going on? Not Debbie. And certainly not Neville. Charis whips out a book and flips through the pages. "Where is it. . . where is it. . . Ah! Right! There, read that!" Charis hands the book over indicting a small paragraph quoting a survivor of the Great War. Debbie flicks through the passage: "The noise of a slamming gate, a flaring gaslight, a train whistle, the barking of a dog or some boyish prank is enough to set off my trembling. Or, sometimes the trembling comes without a reason. All of a sudden I felt my strength was leaving me. I stopped talking. I felt a shiver in my back, I felt my cheeks going hollow. I began to stare and the trembling came back on again." As Debbie hands back the book Charis smiles proudly out at her. "There. See? Now surely you're not going to argue that a train whistle sounds more like a Five-Nine blasting into the ground ahead than an indefinable wail does to the sound of Crucioed wizards, are you?" "Of course not. But . . ." "Neville," Charis concludes happily closing the book with a snap, "has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder! He's Spell-Shocked." Debbie thinks carefully about this. "No, I don't think so. A sound may trigger the onset of PTSD symptoms - one that is associated with the event. But the triggering event brings back the memory of the event itself. And the context of the egg scene does not, IMO, support that conclusion. "Everyone hears the egg's screeching. Nobody's ever heard anything like it before, so they begin guessing. Seamus says that it "sounded like a banshee." Neville next offers, "It was someone being tortured!" Like Seamus, he's just trying to guess what the sound of the egg was. Now Neville may have jumped to conclusions here, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he remembers the Cruciatus Curse. He may just have the idea of that curse coursing through his brain, not as a result of a long-ago Memory Potion, but because Monsieur Crouch showed him what it's like. That class opened up all sorts of new possibilities for him. Horrifying visions to go along with that story he's heard. Visions of how his catatonic/wailing parents might have looked and felt that evening. But Moody's class didn't provide a sound bite. Neville hears Seamus conclude it sounds like the thing he fears most. So Neville's mind jumps to the thing he now fears most -- the curse that lost him his parents and concludes that's what the egg sounds like." Charis opens her mouth to object, but Debbie waves her off. "I know, you're going to say that we know from the boggart scene that Neville's greatest fear is Snape. But that was only his greatest fear at that time. Harry's greatest desire changes from December to June in PS/SS; so there's no reason to think Neville's greatest fear wouldn't change either. In fact, it's natural as we age and gain experience that our desires and our fears will change. Right? Right. And remember, Neville faced the boggart the same day Snape threatened to poison Trevor with Neville's potion. Stands to reason, especially with all the browbeating he gets from Gran about upholding the family honor, that he'd fear Cruciatus worse than Snape once he saw how horrible it was. "What? You think Snape was there that night, killing the Jobberknoll? But even if that's true, it would only mean he remembers Snape being present the night he lost his parents. That's traumatic enough. It doesn't mean he actually saw the torture. Or, if he did, he was already Memory Charmed before Snape arrived to kill the Jabberknoll. Either way, no PTSD." Charis opens her mouth to object that she doesn't believe in the Memory Charm theory, but Debbie interrupts, saying, "What's your next can(n)on?" To which Charis responds: Let's take a look at Neville's symptoms, shall we? He goes * very white* and spills sausages all over the floor. - obviously all that trembling you realise. "But he recovers very quickly from that episode. Yes, he turned white and spilled some sausage (now, is it really that unusual for Nervous Neville to spill something? ) But just a minute later (time enough for George to speak a few sentences) he's busy eating custard creams. He handles this pretty well, as you admit yourself, Charis." Charis nods but plows doggedly forward: And previously, after Moody's Unforgivable lesson Neville is * staring* at the wall opposite him. He's hardly able to talk. An unnaturally high voice. He's getting confused. He has a wide-eyed, horrified look. "Well, let's compare Neville's reaction in Crouch/Moody's class with his reaction to the egg. Here's what happened in class: 'At once, the spider's legs bent in upon its body; it rolled over and began to twitch horribly, rocking from side to side. No sound came from it, but Harry was sure that if it could have given voice, it would have been screaming. Moody did not remove his wand, and the spider started to shudder and jerk more violently . . . . Neville's hands were clenched upon the desk in front of him, his knuckles white, his eyes wide and horrified.' "Neville was *horrified.* Horrified as if he had never imagined it could be so horrible. And after class was over -- quite some time later since Cruciatus was followed by the Adavra Kedavra demonstration and a lecture on the Unforgivables -- Neville was staring at that wall, still "with the same horrified, wide-eyed look he had worn when Moody had demonstrated the Cruciatus Curse." Crouch's little demonstration was a terrifying revelation for Neville, and nearly an hour later (I'm guessing class is at least an hour) he still can't think straight, and he's still speaking nonsense in that unnaturally high voice. That tells me that there's something very different between these two episodes. It tells me Neville saw something new and horrifying in Crouch/Moody's class. Something he had never seen before, or can't remember. For the first time, Neville was able to see and *feel* the trauma that altered his life. And it shook him up, badly. So badly that he cried himself out in his room. So badly that he's noticeably not normal even after the dinner hour. So badly he stays awake long into the night. And ever since then, he's been spending a lot of time thinking about this new image. See, ever since Crouch's demonstration, he's been haunted by the vision of that twitching spider. He's got Cruciatus on the brain, so when he hears the egg it's the first thing that comes to mind and he just blurts it out. But some time has elapsed since Crouch's little show, and he's able to recover much more quickly this time, especially when he realizes how it'll remind everyone of his earlier reaction." Still undaunted by Debbie's can(n)on, Charis brings on her next argument, a comparison with Harry: Harry does get a bit lamentful over Lily and James's demise once in a while and he might blow up an aunt or two when he's feeling really rough, but when Moody mentions AK what he feels mostly is, well, * informed*. And he certainly doesn't clutch at the desk till his knuckles go white, his eyes wide--open in terror. "But Harry's already been dealing with those memories because of his experience with the Dementors. He's seen the green flash. He remembered that bit even before the Dementors. Harry has access to his memories. Besides, Harry's a controlled person. He had to learn control with the Dursleys. On the other hand, the fact that Neville has an extreme reaction in Crouch's class but not on the train or when he hears the egg, indicates that he has not been operating with potion-enhanced memories. Rather, it suggests he does not have those memories, or does not have access to them." On the other hand the Dementors, as you admit Debbie, had a profound influence on Harry. That's because this is the first time he's had to face what Cindy would call the Dolby Digital, mega-screen, extra special effects version of his parents last moments. But as Eileen points out Neville is an old hand at this game. "No, he's not, not in my book. If he was, the Crucio'd spider would have affected him less, or the Dementor would have affected him more like it affected Harry. The Dementor would certainly have triggered his PTSD - isn't the alpha and omega of the Dementors' existence to revive traumatic memories? But it didn't at all. If you look at Neville's reaction to the Dementors, you'll notice that he was pale and has a higher voice than usual. But he wasn't shaking (Ron's comment seems to indicate that only Ginny shook). And he wasn't babbling nonsense like he did after Crouch's demonstration. No, he gave a cogent explanation of his reaction to the Dementor. I have to conclude that the Dementor didn't give him that Dolby Digital version at all. It took Crouch to do that for him. And why not? Because he didn't get a Memory Potion. He got a Memory Charm. And the Dementor may have made a little headway in dislodging those memories from their airtight compartment in Neville's brain. But it didn't make enough headway, did it? Because Neville wasn't unconscious. He wasn't even shaking. But between the Dementor and Crouch/Moody's demonstration and the sound of the egg, Neville's subconscious magic may be beginning to pick away at the shield covering his memories." Now it is Charis who stares blankly. She starts to speak, slowly at first, then gaining speed rapidly. "I do believe in Memory Potions. I do I do I do I do I do! because they * are* Can(n)on." "I'll tell you a secret, Charis. I believe in Memory Potions, too (though I'm still undecided on whether their effect is to enhance or suppress). I believe in the Jobberknoll. They *are* canon. I even believe Frank Longbottom could have had one at home and that Snape could have shown up and killed it. But I somehow keep coming back to the original issue. I just can't buy that Neville was given a Memory Potion. Erm, can you wait here a moment? I want to check something." Debbie goes below deck to the cabin, where she is not seen for days. When she finally emerges, lugging all six volumes of canon, Charis is still on deck mumbling to herself, "I do I do I do!" and eating a canary cream. Debbie approaches. "Charis?" Charis jumps out of her deck chair, then looks hard at Debbie, who says, "I've gone back through the canon looking at descriptions of Neville and I just can't read into them any suggestion that he's haunted by Cruciatus memories at any time until Crouch puts on his little performance. Rather, he acts like someone whose memory is "permanently damaged" by a too powerful memory charm. He can't remember the passwords, can't remember where the trick step is, can't remember the potion-brewing instructions, can't remember to keep track of Trevor. He's got a memory like Bertha's, 'like a leaky cauldron.' "He's a nervous wreck alright. Just look at the flying lesson. But it's not PTSD. The only things that appear to haunt him are (1) he might not be magical enough to uphold the family honor, something Evil!Gran never ceases to remind him of (or else he knows he's plenty magical but doesn't want a career as an Auror), and (2) Snape's wrath. If he was haunted by Cruciatus, his boggart would not have looked like Snape. (Or do you think Snape did the torturing? ) I don't think you can just fool the boggart like that. All these terror-stricken looks don't begin until Crouch comes along and shows him what somebody being tortured really looks like. The Dementor, which should have been a most effective trigger for PTSD, didn't do the trick. "And if Neville doesn't have a visual image of his parents' torture until Crouch shows him, how can he be suffering the effects of a Memory Potion? Wasn't the supposed purpose of the potion to enable Neville to tell what happened and who did it? Aside from the biggest problem, that I can't believe Neville was old enough to provide meaningful information (unless he was fingering someone he already knew, like Evil!Gran or Evil!Uncle Algie or an Evil! friend of Frank's), there's no evidence that he had any visual memory, or at least anything he could access before Crouch came along. I think the evidence shows that the only visual he has is the one Crouch provides for him, and that he still doesn't hear his parents screaming. 'I'm only too willing to concede that if Neville does remember his parents' torture, whether or not as a result of a Memory Potion, his reaction to the egg would look like PTSD. But I thought the MATCHING ARMCHAIR was premised on the notion that Neville is forgetful because he is constantly reliving these events. If this memory is so omnipresent as to make him forget so much, then he doesn't need a triggering event to bring up the memory. Right?" Charis still looks unconvinced. "Well, then, let's ask Cindy. She's the Memory Potion expert, after all." At that, Debbie grabs her Omnioculars and gazes over to the Big Bang Destroyer itself, looking for Captain Cindy. But, alas, she isn't even on deck. Her usual post is occupied by her new co-captain Humpty Dumpty, who is perched precariously on the deck rail. Debbie sighs. Once, she thought her Memory Charm theories might have earned her a ticket to the destroyer, but that was when Cindy was in charge. Debbie collects her thoughts quickly, as she spies the MATCHINGARMCHAIR paddleboat, bearing Cindy and Eileen, approaching the hovercraft. Charis Julia gives a joyous shout and immediately dives over the rail, swimming swiftly to the floating armchair. "Well, Cindy," Debbie asks. "What do you think?" *Why* does Neville liken the Egg's wail to torture? Is he thinking of his parents' tortured screams, the ones he hears because of the Memory Potion? Is he hearing the tortured sound of Snape slowly twisting the life from Neville's beloved and helpless blue bird? Well, maybe. But there are two other possibilities to explain Neville's reaction. The first option is that Neville reacts the way he does because of those dreaded visits to his parents at St. Mungos. What do his parents likely *do* during those visits? Well, that depends on whether you want a Bang or not. If you want a Bang (as I surely do), then they *wail*, that's what they do! Debbie nods. "See? Even Cindy doesn't *really* buy that Memory Potion thing! It was just her bit of fun!" Cindy nods. "So, Eileen and Charis Julia, we can have our MATCHINGARMCHAIR with Jobberknoll plus Wailing Insane Parents Variant. Or we can go with MATCHINGARMCHAIR with Jobberknoll plus Subjective Egg Variant with optional Wailing Insane Parents. Your choice." And Debbie, we'd *love* to have you on board, so will you convert?" Debbie contemplates for a moment. After her long and passionate defense of the Memory Charm, which has driven virtually everyone else from Theory Bay, wouldn't it be intellectually dishonest to join her opponents? Yes . . . but it might be fun. It's pretty lonely defending the Memory Charm, now that Elkins is gone. So Debbie tries another compromise. "How about the Jobberknoll with Wailing Insane Parents Variant? With Memory Charm? Or the Wailing Insane Parents with Memory Potion and Memory Charm? No? Well then, perhaps I can just pull up on my own Memory Charm paddleboat, anchor it to yours, and share some refreshments while we spin out new Jobberknoll theories together. At least until your Big Bang co-captain topples over and you have to go back. I'll even send Elkins an owl, asking her to join me and even bring Sneaky!Neville with her. How about it?" ************* Debbie, who realizes now that many listmembers are too young to remember when Paul McCartney was widely rumored to be Dead!Dead!Dead! (It was even rumored to be quite Bangy) > For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit > Hypothetic Alley at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin20Files/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 goddess at yaoigoddess.com Tue Jun 4 01:46:55 2002 From: goddess at yaoigoddess.com (Rochelle) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 21:46:55 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lupin is an honest, nasty, DISLOYAL person (who is ever so evil) References: Message-ID: <3CFC1C0F.5EFB96BD@yaoigoddess.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39392 bluesqueak wrote: > > > Lupin's reply? > "You fool. Is a schoolboy grudge worth putting an innocent man back > inside Azkaban?" > > *An* innocent man? Snape's talking about both of them; has a grudge > against both of them - so where has this *an* innocent man come from? Personally, I think it's just because Remus is more concerned about Sirius than he is about himself. He and Sirius were once good friends (or possibly more, depending on who you're talking to), they've just been reunited, and Remus has just had the exquisite joy of finding out that Sirius is innocent. He also knows that Azkaban is not a pleasant place to be; understandably, he'd be VERY upset at the prospect of his good friend (or possibly more, depending on who you're talking to *g*) being sent back there for a crime he didn't commit. If Remus really is the compassionate sweetheart that he seems to be, it only stands to reason, I think, that he'd be more concerned about someone he loves rotting away in that awful place than he would be about his own fate. If I were in a similar situation with someone I really cared about, I know that I'd think of *their* welfare before I worried over mine. I just got here, BTW. Hello! :) *Rochelle. -- http://www.YaoiGoddess.com/ --Long Live the Slash. http://www.fanfiction.net/profile.php?userid=26023 --My fics on FFN. http://www.YaoiGoddess.com/light/ --Unlock the mysteries of Severus Snape in "Dying of the Light." ------------------ From elfundeb at aol.com Tue Jun 4 04:10:37 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 00:10:37 EDT Subject: Lone Protector Message-ID: <9e.27489c3e.2a2d97bd@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39393 Dicentra defending Sirius: > He's Lone Protector, and he > doesn't need anyone else. > > Or at least, that *was* his modus operandi. The next time Harry is > in trouble (GoF), we don't see Sirius trying to Go It Alone: he's > been corresponding with Dumbledore, and he's been taking Dumbledore's > No striking out on > his own. No heroics. And no screw-ups. Let's hope he's recognized > that he can't Protect The Pack on his own, and that we don't see him > reverting to Lone Protector in OoP and the rest. I don't know about this. He certainly seems to be learning as GoF progresses, but his letter to Harry, which stresses Harry so much, implies that he decided on his own. "I'm flying north immediately. This news about your scar is the latest in a series of strange rumors that have reached me here. . . . If it hurts again, go straight to Dumbledore -- they're saying he's got Mad-Eye out of retirement, which means he's reading the signs. . . ." There's nothing to suggest Sirius has been in contact with Dumbledore since Sirius is getting his information from the rumor mill (the mysterious unidentified "they"). No, I still think he's still hothead Lone Protector who, still wracked with guilt over James and Lily, needing to make it up to Harry somehow (not to mention his life-debt), and hearing very disturbing things, scribbles a rushed note to Harry and sets off on his own. Maybe he dashes a note off to Dumbledore, too, on his way out, but he's not going to give anyone a chance to talk him out of it. I think he only asked for help when he realized he couldn't hide as a dog in the Forbidden Forest with a condemned hippogriff in tow. It's pretty reckless behavior, but it's classic Sirius. And maybe he doesn't screw up during the rest of GoF, but he can't leave the cave for too long with Buckbeak in hiding, too. So that keeps him in check. Nevertheless, he still manages to break into someone's house to use their fireplace. Now what would have happened if someone woke up at that house and came out to check on the noise, as happened to Harry? Nah. He's not over the reckless heroics. Which is fine. I like my characters better with a full share of flaws. Debbie, who's been trying to work out some of her Sirius issues and hastens to point out to Dicentra that this is the nicest thing she's ever said about him [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From angelsound2001 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 4 03:14:46 2002 From: angelsound2001 at yahoo.com (angelsound2001 at yahoo.com) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 20:14:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Comforting!Hermione, Sensitive!Harry Message-ID: <20020604031447.35712.qmail@web10801.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39394 Charis Julia wrote: <> She's worried that Sirius will *believe* Harry and not do anything about Harry's scar problem. Or at least, that's a possible reading of it. She does seem to be morally indignant here. But she may see inaction on Sirius's part (though, really, what does she expect him to do?) as a possible negative result of the lie. Charis Julia continued: <> Actually, I've always taken from that that Harry is a lot more patient with these people then, say, I would be, to elaborate on JennyofRavenclaw's post (<>). He never ignores them, always gives a civil response, and never tells them to get lost even where a less patient person would totally lose it. "I'm in a hurry" could be honest (IIRC, it was) and "It'll be boring" is an attempt to avoid Colin *without* having to hurt his feelings. And think about it... would any of us really like Harry as much if he stopped and took a lot of time with Colin and his little fan club? Letting them take his picture all the time and such? We'd probably think he was playing up his own fame Lockhart-style, instead of being modestly embarrassed by it as he is! Finally, <> Which Myrtle passage were we talking about? The one that springs to mind is the one where Harry mentions breathing in front of Myrtle, then is quickly reminded "how sensitive Myrtle was about being dead." Now, not having talked to many dead people, as I'm sure Harry hasn't either, I'll bet it's easy to forget not to use words like "breathe" in front of Myrtle. But he DID know beforehand that she was sensitive... and he WAS rather caught up in his own problem at the time! OK, so Harry can be insensitive... but he's not without *concern* for others. He didn't insult her on purpose and seems to feel bad about it... not looking at the book at the moment, this is all from memory so I could be wrong! The point is, like many adolescent (and some full grown!) boys, Harry can be slow to percieve how others feel. I guess we agree there! On a side note, kudos to prefectmarcus on wonderful use of the word "shnook." Oh, and Pippin? Please, **please** be wrong about Lupin! That post was... *too* good... --Raven, who's only on her second post ever, and hopes someday she'll be creative enough to live in TBay __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From eclipse02134 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 4 05:01:43 2002 From: eclipse02134 at yahoo.com (Eclipse) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 22:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Does Dumbledore have to die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020604050143.51514.qmail@web20808.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39395 My first though was yes, so that Harry could save the magical community. However with Dumbledore being the only one Voldemort was afraid of he is tied to Hogwarts. Dumbledore has to protect the students who are unable to defend themselves. I could see the first time around, Voldemort lured Dumbledore away from the school, and then killed several people there. Thats why Dumbledore is training Harry. Harry will be able to go after Voldemort, while Dumbledore protects the school. If Dumbledore dies before the big battle at the end of the last book, everyone at Hogwarts are sitting ducks without his protection. Eclipse __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From chetah27 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 4 06:04:28 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 06:04:28 -0000 Subject: Boggarts/Remus&theFullMoon/Potency (WAS Re: Lupin,BewitchingHour,WolfbanePotion) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39396 revrend_ish wrote: <>what if the Full Moon is NOT the cause of a werewolf's transformation, but merely a coincedence? Maybe, the full moon is just another sign that a certain "magical hour" is at hand. The sign would cause the fear (hence the bogarts transformation to it), but would NOT have the power, because it is not the time.<> Oh, yes! I like this. It very well goes with what Remus saw when the Boggart transformed- he saw a full moon, becuase that's what he sees as a sign that he shall be going werewolf soon. *nods* Yes, that does make sense. And it also helps to explain WHY he didn't transform at the sight of the Boggart moon- it wasn't the actual time for him to transform, the Boggart was just trying to scare him into thinking so with showing him what he considers as a sign that he shall transform rather soon. I also like the way Elkins worded it: <>What Lupin fears is his own lycanthropy, which is *represented* to him by the sight of the full moon. Boggarts are obviously capable of a rather sophisticated symbolic version of "taking the form of ones worst fear." <> Charles Engle wrote: <>One other theory I've had is that Harry's reaction to the boggart is psychosomatic. Non-canonical of course, but perhaps Lupin knows that the boggart can't turn him into a wolf, so it has no power over him. Harry doesn't know that it cannot truly exert dementor powers (just the impression of them)and so, he is affected (though, not nearly as bad as a real dementor). Lupin doesn't tell him because he knows Harry needs the experience, and a chance never arises later. You'll note, too, that the boggart-dementor in the third task (GoF) does NOT give Harry that weak feeling, so he may have since learned the truth and JKR didn't share it with us.<> To further this theory(and going back to what Elkins commented on about "worst fears"): one way we get over our fears is to conquer them, right? I'm thinking that a Boggart popping up and going "boo! I'm scary but not real!" just only works so many times. By GoF, Harry already KNOWS he can conquer a Dementor Boggart(just as in PoA he is able to produce that wonderful Patronus because he already knows he can), and so has no trouble with it. That might even be why it stumbles- a moment of doubt for the poor Boggart, when it realizes that it's victim isn't quite paralyzed with fear, and so it slips up in it's Dementor performance. Also, this goes with why Lupin was able to handle the Boggart "almost lazily", and why he wasn't concerned with turning into a werewolf at the site of it. Elkins: <>Hmmm? What's that you say? You want to know about the dimming of the lights? Er. Yes. Well. I think *that* is probably a ::coughFLINTcough:: manifestation of Harry's spontaneous magic. He's dimming the lights himself through unconscious magic, in precisely the same way that Neville is always melting all of those cauldron bottoms in Snape's Potions Class.<> Pip replied: <>I'm not sure Harry is actually dimming the lights himself; or indeed that the lights are dimming at all. Following on from the 'psychosomatic' thought... The Boggart seems to have the ability to reach into people's minds and tap into their darkest fears, taking on the appearance of those fears. In which case the dimming of the lights and the cold are all part of the Boggart's powers of illusion. Harry 'thinks' they rekindle after each Boggart attack; suppose the reason they are alight after each attack is that they never really went out? The cold would also be a power of illusion - the Boggart senses that Harry associates Dementors with cold, so you get a 'sense' of cold.<> Ooh, yes, I don't think the lights actually ever rekindled or dimmed. In the chapter where Harry learns the Patronus, Lupin is never mentioned as noticing the lights going out or anything. It only mentions him extinguishing lights at the end of the lesson, which Harry -assumes- had rekindled when the Boggart/Dementor left. (and we all know not to trust what Harry assumes =) I think the Boggart takes the outward form of whatever a person fears, but then also adds whatever creepy effects it can to help futher the illusion it is putting up. Hence, the room growing dark and cold whenever the Dementor appears. I think that the Boggart also associates that the reason Harry is so afraid of the Dementors is that it brings up such painful memories as of his parents' death. And so, the Boggart does the same. OR, that Harry himself just associates the Dementors with his parents' death, and therefore he himself unconciously pulls up such memories- it even says that he somehow sadistically enjoys it in the fact that he gets to hear his parents' voices. Hmm...I am now thinking the later of these two to be the more probable. Cindy: <>Actually, the term "Bewitching Hour" is a bit misleading. In Mahoney's original example, she used midnight as the Bewitching Hour as a convenient example. But the theory doesn't require that it be midnight. The Bewitching Hour (which might not even an hour, BTW) is simply whatever time it is that triggers Lupin's transformation. It might be 11:30, it might be 2:00 a.m. Who knows? But it does not have to be midnight, and on the night in question, it wasn't midnight. So what was the time of the Bewitching Hour that night?<> Well, according to A Goldfeesh, Lupin transformed at 11 o'clock on the night of The Shack Incident. Dicentra replied with: <>If you look in the almanac, it will tell you not only the day of the full moon but the precise *time*. Apparently, the moon is truly full for only a few minutes before it begins to wane.<> And does this change, the exact time of the moon becoming truly full? If so then there isn't a set "Bewitching Hour", I suppose. And this even helps to further the above mentioned theory about why Lupin doesn't react to the Boggart Moon. The Full Moon is merely a sign that the tranformation shall be taking place soon, and so he doesn't transform at the site of the Boggart moon. And the "truly full" idea does explain away the coulds bit. I guess it doesn't matter if he's standing outside in the moonlight or not- once the moon has reached true fullness, he turns werewolf. But, is this with or without the Potion? I ask this because Grey Wolf's Potency!Theory intrigues me: <>The potion curbs the instinct, and keeps Lupin from transforming in "those days" as long as the moon doesn't hit him... for a few hours. Then, about two or three in the morning, the moon's presence is just too much and he transforms, even if he's behind walls or it's a cloudy night.<> Oh, breakthrough! I think the potency thing goes both ways- with the Potion and the Moon. He does have to take the potion for a full week before the moon, and so perhaps, without the potion, he would be werewolfy for that full week(is not sure about this)? And THAT is why he had to go to the Shrieking Shack, which is boarded up, to keep things out(People, -Moonlnight-) and to keep people in(Remus himself). Him going to the Shack also possibly helps tone him down a bit, keeping him out of the full light of the full moon. And the same with the Potion- it helps tone down his reaction to the moon. He can put off becoming a werewolf for awhile until the Moon becomes quite strong, and he can also keeps his wits so as to keep him harmless. *sits for a moment in thought* Hmm...and perhaps Remus being a wizard helps him to deal with his werewolfness. The moon IS visable in the daytime, and perhaps someone with less magic in them would become werewofly during the entire week the moon is growing full. And Remus, being a wizard, is able to keep himself normal- except at night, when the moon is most potent. And then with the extra magic from the Potion, he is able to keep himself fairly normal for most of the Full Moon Week, except at the moon's true fullness. Aldrea *would think to add more, but is anxious to burn, stab, and utterly destroy the Remus Is Ever So Evil Theory* From chetah27 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 4 07:10:56 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 07:10:56 -0000 Subject: Lupin is NOT NOT NOT an honest, nasty, DISLOYAL person who is ever so evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39397 *grabs big giant stick and prepares to poke as many holes as she can in this evil, evil theory* Pipppin: > This is a red flag. JKR wouldn't create two characters with the > same narrative function. Only one of them can be the > scapegoat--the other is guilty, guilty, guilty. It can't be Sirius. > Everybody in the wizarding world thinks he dunnit. It's Harry's > quest to clear his name. But that leaves-- HOW do they have the same narrative function? Elaborate on this. Sirius is now Harry's Protector, a man that Harry now completely trusts and relies on. Lupin was Harry's teacher for a year, but the resigned, and has been MIA for a bit. > Yup. Lupin is ever so evil. NO NO NO! ...why he didn't tell > Dumbledore about Sirius or the map Kat(booklovinggirl) covered that with: Remus has admitted to being wrong about this, not wanting to incriminate the Marauders, because it would lead to the Animagi adventures, which would add up to "I betrayed you when I was a student." why he's so calm and > unhurried in the shack, Because of the whole time/potion thing, he thought he had enough time. why he insists that Sirius and he have to > tell the whole story, Kat got this one, also: <>Do you think that Harry, Hermione and Ron would have believed them otherwise? Harry was ready to *kill* Sirius, Hermione was accusing Remus of helping Sirius kill Harry, and Ron was telling Sirius "You'll have to kill all of us." If I were cornered by three hysterical teenagers, I'd want to make sure they knew exactly what was going on as well!<> why he left the map where Snape could find > it. Kat argued: <>If Snape had any bloody sense, he would have noticed the dot labled "Peter Pettigrew."<> It explains why Crouch!Moody is so good at teaching DADA. Kat said: <>Wouldn't Crouch!Moody's skill in teaching DADA come from the fact that he's been involved in the Dark Arts themselves? We don't know nearly enough about Crouch!Moody before Voldemort-is it possible he was a prefect? Student teacher?<> > I say Lupin is a servant of Voldemort. Where did he go after > James and Lily died? To Albania perhaps? Equipped with a > wand but unable to aid his master because of his condition? > Lupin could hardly tend to baby Voldie's needs in wolf form, after > all. But then Sirius escapes Azkaban. And Voldemort sends > Lupin to find and murder Sirius who killed his servant Peter. > Lupin and Voldie don't know that Peter is alive, of course. Naama nailed that with: <>OK, Pippin. I think I've got something here: It doesn't make sense that Voldemort would send Lupin to kill Sirius. He would have no other motive than to avenge Peter, and what does he care about Peter? What does he care about any of his enemies or allies? As we have seen, he would just as soon Crucio the one as the other.<> Ooh, go Naama. Also, Kat argued with the fact that how would Voldie KNOW that Peter was alive? The newspaper article didn't mention that the Ministry thought Sirius was going to Hogwarts. And as far as we know, Voldemort didn't have any faithful DE supporting him until Peter came along. Dicentra replied to Naama with: <>So Lupin isn't there to avenge Peter's death. I can dig that. But maybe he's there to kill Sirius anyway. For whatever twisted reason he has.<> I think Remus had a definate grudge against Sirius, -in the beginning of the book-. This is suported when Harry menions him during their Dementor lesson and Remus seems to get upset. But that is resolved in the Shack Scene. Remus thought Sirius had been a spy and a betrayer, but he forgave him, and vice versa. Back to Pipin: > Now I tried to dismiss this theory. I told myself it wouldn't fly > without a honking big pink flamingo of a clue. Unfortunately there > is one. > ****"When they get near me--" Harry stared at Lupin's desk, his > throat tight. "I can hear Voldemort murdering my mum." > > Lupin made a sudden motion with his arm as though to grip > Harry's shoulder, but thought better of it."*****PoA Ch. 10 > > Yep, Lupin is extremely reluctant to touch Harry, not surprising > since the last Voldemort employee who tried it got fried. Better > wait till Harry is unconscious and try it then. PoA Ch. 12 Naamus squashed this with: <>Yeah, but come on, that was because Voldemort was inhabiting his body. And Voldemort knows this. He says (GoF, graveyard scene): "His [Harry's] mother died in the attempt to save him - and unwittingly provided him with a protection I admit I had not foreseen ... I could not touch the boy". And then he runs "one of his long white fingers" on Harry's cheek. That means that Voldemort identified the protection Harry's mother gave him as specifically against himself, not a general protection from enemies as such, DEs or whatever. No, the protection is only against Voldemort, and he knows it. If Lupin is doing Voldemort's bidding then he would know this as well.<> I always thought Lupin was just sort of trying to restrain his emotions in that scene. > ****"Forgive me, Remus," said Black. > "Not at all, Padfoot, old friend,"***** PoA ch. 19 > (shiver) I always read the scene that that is where Lupin and Sirus clear up that one last matter. They had each suspected each other has beng a spy, but they had now learned the truth. I think, that from that point on, they start working together a little bit better. > But Lupin taught Harry to fight the Dementors. > > Yeah, just like Moody taught Harry to fight Imperius. But not > because Dumbledore made him. . Imagine the villain-tells-all > scene where Lupin explains just how much he enjoyed watching > Harry live through the agony of his parents' deaths, over and over > and over again. (shudder) Oh, every time Harry learns something knew doesn't mean there has to be some dark plot behind it all. *sighs* No wonder the poor boy doesn't do extremely well in school.. =P > How did Crouch!Moody, who's never taught a lesson in his life, > get so good at teaching DADA? Lupin taught him. He *is* a good > teacher. > He does have one rather frightening hobby: he makes pets out of > Dark Creatures and then kills them. We know what happened to > the Boggart in the wardrobe. But what happened to the > Grindylow, eh? Why put in the detail of the empty case? (shiver) > > Now, consider the night of the Shack: > > Eversoevil!Lupin has been waiting all year to get his hands on > Sirius. Just as he tells the trio, he hasn't been helping Sirius get > into the castle. Indeed, he doesn't want Harry dead. (shiver) In > fact Lupin himself shivers here. No, Voldemort has warned him > not to let Harry die. > > Lupin figures that the Trio will go down to see Hagrid the night of > the execution, which, ever so conveniently is going to be a full > moon. He knows that Sirius is lurking on the grounds, because > he's seen him on the map. He guesses that Sirius will try to > contact Harry. This is Lupin's big chance. Not only will he kill > Sirius, he will save Harry Potter. Perfect! He takes his potion, but > secretly. It's easy to break into Snape's office, as we have been > most carefully shown, and Snape brews the stuff by the > cauldronful. Then Lupin waits. But look! There, on the Map, it's > --Peter Pettigrew?? But Pettigrew's *dead*. > > Lupin's got to have an explanation for this. He sees everyone > enter the willow, and he gets a brilliant idea. He leaves the > activated map on the table and runs out toward the Shack, > knowing Snape will come to give him the potion, see him on the > map and follow him just as he did twenty years before. > Sirius Black never planned to murder Snape. Lupin did. And > Lupin hates Harry, just the way he's hated James, ever since > James thwarted his beautiful plan. Plan? You mean now The Prank was Lupin's idea? Nonono. In the Shack, Lupin even mentions the Prank as being "what Siruis thought would have been an amusing joke"- and Siruis doesn't deny it. His godson is sitting right infront of him and he's not saying anything like "Now now Lupin, you helped me with that little Prank also.." > Of all the Marauders, Lupin has the best reason to want Snape > dead, since he has the most to lose if his secret is revealed. Lupin doesn't seem to have a problem when Hermione calls him a werewolf. > So Lupin gets to the shack, and then he insists, insists! on a > long detailed explanation from Sirius. Ah, but that has been discussed. >snip the bit about Crookshanks> > Sirius chases off after Pettigrew and then, mysteriously, > hundreds of Dementors appear and attack Sirius, Hermione, > Harry and Ron. > > Think about it. There've been people wandering around the > grounds all night. Snape, Fudge, MacNair, Dumbledore, Hagrid, > Tt!Harry and Tt!Hermione . The Dementors don't bother any of > them. Then all of a sudden there are hundreds. Why? Because > werewolf!Lupin set the Dementors on our heroes. (shiver!) Can > the Dementors tell when they're dealing with a human mind in a > canid body? They can't. *likes Kat's answer to this*: <>Well, then how did he get them to go after Sirius? He can't communicate when he's transformed.<> Yes, precisely, how DID Lupin lead the Dementors to our heroes? I will come back to that last bit later, but I must must must go to bed. ~Aldrea, who hopes the stick did it's job From divaclv at aol.com Tue Jun 4 15:07:46 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 15:07:46 -0000 Subject: Does Dumbledore have to die? In-Reply-To: <20020604050143.51514.qmail@web20808.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39398 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Eclipse wrote: > > My first though was yes, so that Harry could save > the magical community. However with Dumbledore being > the only one Voldemort was afraid of he is tied to > Hogwarts. Dumbledore has to protect the students who > are unable to defend themselves. I could see the first > time around, Voldemort lured Dumbledore away from the > school, and then killed several people there. Thats > why Dumbledore is training Harry. Harry will be able > to go after Voldemort, while Dumbledore protects the > school. If Dumbledore dies before the big battle at > the end of the last book, everyone at Hogwarts are > sitting ducks without his protection. > > > Eclipse But that's exactly why I think Dumbledore /will/ die well before the end of the series (in fact, I'm almost convinced he's going to cash in his chips in OotP). He can't always be around to guide protect Harry, or to keep Sirius and Snape from getting into an all- out brawl with each other, or keep Voldemort at bay, etc. If and when he goes, it will create a severe crisis for the good guys--and it is in that sort of crisis that people rise above themselves and exceed their previous limitations. The loss of Dumbledore seems to me a necessary rite of passage. Besides, from a dramatic standpoint it would cause the stakes to skyrocket--how much more terrifying will Voldemort seem when the only wizard he never dared challenge is no longer present? ~Christi From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Tue Jun 4 16:31:42 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 16:31:42 -0000 Subject: Everybody Ought To Have An Elf (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39399 This filk was inspired by the recent thread on house-elves: Everybody Ought To Have An Elf (To the tune of Everybody Ought To Have A Maid, from A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum) Dedicated to Felicia Rickmann (a fellow Sondheim fan) Hear a MIDI of the original at: http://www.broadwaymidi.com/shows/funny_thing_happened_on_the_way_to_t he_forum.html THE SCENE: The ground of Hogwarts. Enter LUCIUS and CROUCH, Sr. LUCIUS Everybody ought to have an elf Everybody ought to have a helpful sprite Everybody ought to use their elf-ful might For straightening up the home CROUCH Everybody ought to have an elf Everybody ought to own such modest slaves Although they are the oddest knaves Who are even more weird than gnomes. LUCIUS Oh, Oh, wouldn't it be reposing Having `em without clothing To do the chores? BC: Oh, Oh, wouldn't it be relaxing LM: Working less BC: Shirking more? BOTH Everybody ought to have an elf Someone who you sign up when you need a serf To labor on your bit of turf Who never have need to roam. LM: Moiling in the kitchen BC: Boiling up my coffee LM: Broiling up some dinner BC: Spoiling up the master BOTH: Toiling all around the home! LUCIUS: Oh, oh, wouldn't it oppressive Were I to use excessive Elf-discipline? Oh, Oh, wouldn't it be malicious Slapping down Strapping in BOTH: Everybody ought to have an elf Someone proudly showing the ingredients Of absolute obedience Who'll scrape before our throne LM: Keeling beneath their burdens BC: Reeling off their Creole LM: Kneeling `fore their owners BOTH: Concealing fam'ly secrets Squealing all around the home CROUCH Everybody ought to have an elf Everybody ought to have a vassal who Tries so hard not to hassle you While cleaning with fine-toothed combs LUCIUS Oh, oh, think of them as a captive, Who are highly adaptive Slogging about. CROUCH: Oh, oh, shouldn't they be exploited, Giving in, Giving out. LUCIUS Everybody ought to have an elf, If their work does not give you astonishment Assign to them self-punishment They're eager to atone! LM: Yardening in the garden, BC: Guarding all through the arbors, LM: Ardently bearing tea trays, BC Laboring in each doorway BOTH: Bustling all around the home! The home! The home! (Enter DUMBLEDORE, a bit abashed at having to sing in such company) DUMBLEDORE Everybody ought to have an elf Someone who's established in their servitude Who know just how to serve a dude And shy away from crusades! Oh, oh, aren't they all so domestic Doing their very best if They don't get paid Oh, oh, aren't they so very loyal LUCIUS Don't we all Have it made? CROUCH & LUCIUS Everybody ought to have an elf, Even those with a name that means "bumblebee" And though he thinks he's humble, he Cannot his part evade. DUMBLEDORE Balancing up my budget LUCIUS Drudgering in your kitchen CROUCH Trudgering in your dorm rooms DUMBLEDORE Fudgering up the Weasleys CROUCH & LUCIUS Smudgering all about your rep! Your rep! Your rep! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From suzchiles at pobox.com Tue Jun 4 16:36:30 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 09:36:30 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Everybody Ought To Have An Elf (filk) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39400 I wonder ... should Stephen Sondheim starting working on Harry Potter: The Musical? Zoe, a MAJOR Sondheim fan/fanatic > -----Original Message----- > From: coriolan_cmc2001 [mailto:coriolan at worldnet.att.net] > Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 9:32 AM > To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com > Subject: [HPforGrownups] Everybody Ought To Have An Elf (filk) > > > This filk was inspired by the recent thread on house-elves: > > Everybody Ought To Have An Elf > > (To the tune of Everybody Ought To Have A Maid, from A Funny Thing > Happened on the Way to the Forum) > > Dedicated to Felicia Rickmann (a fellow Sondheim fan) > > Hear a MIDI of the original at: > > http://www.broadwaymidi.com/shows/funny_thing_happened_on_the_way_to_t > he_forum.html > > THE SCENE: The ground of Hogwarts. Enter LUCIUS and CROUCH, Sr. > > LUCIUS > Everybody ought to have an elf > Everybody ought to have a helpful sprite > Everybody ought to use their elf-ful might > For straightening up the home > > CROUCH > Everybody ought to have an elf > Everybody ought to own such modest slaves > Although they are the oddest knaves > Who are even more weird than gnomes. > > LUCIUS > Oh, Oh, wouldn't it be reposing > Having `em without clothing > To do the chores? > BC: Oh, Oh, wouldn't it be relaxing > LM: Working less > BC: Shirking more? > > BOTH > Everybody ought to have an elf > Someone who you sign up when you need a serf > To labor on your bit of turf > Who never have need to roam. > LM: Moiling in the kitchen > BC: Boiling up my coffee > LM: Broiling up some dinner > BC: Spoiling up the master > BOTH: Toiling all around the home! > > LUCIUS: > Oh, oh, wouldn't it oppressive > Were I to use excessive > Elf-discipline? > Oh, Oh, wouldn't it be malicious > Slapping down > Strapping in > > BOTH: > Everybody ought to have an elf > Someone proudly showing the ingredients > Of absolute obedience > Who'll scrape before our throne > LM: Keeling beneath their burdens > BC: Reeling off their Creole > LM: Kneeling `fore their owners > BOTH: Concealing fam'ly secrets > Squealing all around the home > > CROUCH > Everybody ought to have an elf > Everybody ought to have a vassal who > Tries so hard not to hassle you > While cleaning with fine-toothed combs > > LUCIUS > Oh, oh, think of them as a captive, > Who are highly adaptive > Slogging about. > CROUCH: > Oh, oh, shouldn't they be exploited, > Giving in, > Giving out. > > LUCIUS > Everybody ought to have an elf, > If their work does not give you astonishment > Assign to them self-punishment > They're eager to atone! > > LM: Yardening in the garden, > BC: Guarding all through the arbors, > LM: Ardently bearing tea trays, > BC Laboring in each doorway > BOTH: Bustling all around the home! > The home! > The home! > > (Enter DUMBLEDORE, a bit abashed at having to sing in such company) > > DUMBLEDORE > Everybody ought to have an elf > Someone who's established in their servitude > Who know just how to serve a dude > And shy away from crusades! > Oh, oh, aren't they all so domestic > Doing their very best if > They don't get paid > Oh, oh, aren't they so very loyal > > LUCIUS > Don't we all > Have it made? > > CROUCH & LUCIUS > Everybody ought to have an elf, > Even those with a name that means "bumblebee" > And though he thinks he's humble, he > Cannot his part evade. > > DUMBLEDORE > Balancing up my budget > > LUCIUS > Drudgering in your kitchen > > CROUCH > Trudgering in your dorm rooms > > DUMBLEDORE > Fudgering up the Weasleys > > CROUCH & LUCIUS > Smudgering all about your rep! > Your rep! > Your rep! > > - CMC > > HARRY POTTER FILKS > http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm > > > > > ________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 ck32976 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 4 17:15:38 2002 From: ck32976 at yahoo.com (ck32976) Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 17:15:38 -0000 Subject: Snape is an honest nasty DISLOYAL person (who will betray Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39401 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > So who does Dumbledore trust enough to let his guard down? It's a > fairly short list, I think: Snip > 4. Lucius. Interesting, but he has received so little development > that this one is hard to swallow. I'm sorry if I am replying to something that has already been addressed, or if that was a misprint, or if I am missing something (It certainly wouldn't be the first time!). I may be misunderstanding you here, but are you saying that Dumbledore TRUSTS Lucius? I am under the impression that not only does he not trust him, but there is definite animosity between them. As far as betraying Dumbledore, I think that he already has in more than one way... First, by sending Riddle's diary to the school in CoS. Second, by threatening the other governors into suspending Dumbledore in CoS. There may be more. I just see them as being blatently on opposite sides. Again, if I'm wrong, please tell me. Thanks. Carrie-Ann From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Tue Jun 4 17:17:47 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 17:17:47 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore does not HAVE to die. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39402 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "c_voth312" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Eclipse wrote: > > Eclipse > ~Christi In order to be the most heroic, Harry does have to face Voldemort alone without Dumbledore, but the big D doesn't have to be dead for that to happen. Harry has always managed to face Voldemort without Dumbledore up to now. Dumbledore was even "gotten rid of" completely in CoS, if you recall. Killing Dumbledore off just so Harry and company can be completely heroic seems overkill (no pun intended) to me. Every book so far has Harry facing down the evil menance alone, and Dumbledore discussing it with him as we cool down after the climax. I see no need to change. We have the seeds of the MoM stepping in and removing Dumbledore already at the end of GoF. Why do we need to kill him? Marcus From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 4 18:09:41 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 18:09:41 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore does not HAVE to die. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39403 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "prefectmarcus" wrote: > > In order to be the most heroic, Harry does have to face Voldemort > alone without Dumbledore, but the big D doesn't have to be dead for > that to happen. Harry has always managed to face Voldemort without > Dumbledore up to now. Dumbledore was even "gotten rid of" completely > in CoS, if you recall. ::Ahem:: Arguing against 'Harry already manages without Dumbledore'. Dumbledore is trying to wean Harry from expecting his help, but Harry still isn't quite old enough/powerful enough. In PS/SS Harry gets Dumbledore himself in a 'nick of time' rescue. In CoS Harry gets less help - but he gets Fawkes and the Sorting hat. You think Dumbledore didn't send them? They both come from his office. In PoA he gets...well. If you're trying to wean a boy off expecting a miraculous helping hand, them someone he would much rather do without is a pretty good choice. I'm going to discuss 'Snape the Spy and the Shrieking Shack' in what is currently becoming a (very)long post later tonight or tomorrow, but I will comment that Snape's whole behaviour towards Harry in the Shack is heavily orientated to getting a 'Get lost, I can do this on my own!' response out of the boy. (The major concussion and possible skull fracture was admittedly unlikely to have been the precise response Snape was aiming for. But then, it was an accident.) It's in GoF Harry has to manage on his own, aided only by the 'twin core' nature of the wands. And does manage - but we find out later that Dumbledore knows all about the Priori Incantatem Effect. However he still needs protection afterwards from Fake!Moody. (The real suggestion that Dumbledore was completely fooled by Fake!Moody and his post-Voldemort kidnap is that here there doesn't seem to have been any advance planning - just 'grab your trusted allies, kick the door down and fight'.) > > We have the seeds of the MoM stepping in and removing Dumbledore > already at the end of GoF. Why do we need to kill him? > Because it's more fun that way? :-) Pip (who is beginning to suspect Dumbledore's death is an essential part of his plan, but then she suspects everybody anyway.) From cengle3 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 4 17:13:14 2002 From: cengle3 at yahoo.com (Charles Engle) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 10:13:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Does Dumbledore have to die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020604171315.47640.qmail@web12303.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39404 ~Christi said: >But that's exactly why I think Dumbledore /will/ die well before >the end of the series (in fact, I'm almost convinced he's going to >cash in his chips in OotP). He can't always be around to guide >protect Harry, or to keep Sirius and Snape from getting into an all- >out brawl with each other, or keep Voldemort at bay, etc. If and >when he goes, it will create a severe crisis for the good guys--and >it is in that sort of crisis that people rise above themselves and >exceed their previous limitations. The loss of Dumbledore seems to >me a necessary rite of passage. Besides, from a dramatic standpoint >it would cause the stakes to skyrocket--how much more terrifying will >Voldemort seem when the only wizard he never dared challenge is no >longer present? Dumbledore could also take a page out of Voldy's book, and, much like Crouch Jr, he could fake his own death, only to return triumphantly in the 7th book. There, we learn how he has been working in the background ever since his "death". ish (who very much likes this group, ya'll are crazy, like me. ) Charles B. Engle, III CCNA, Network+ --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Tue Jun 4 18:49:34 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 18:49:34 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore does not HAVE to die. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39405 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "prefectmarcus" wrote: > > > > > In order to be the most heroic, Harry does have to face Voldemort > > alone without Dumbledore, but the big D doesn't have to be dead for > > that to happen. Harry has always managed to face Voldemort without > > Dumbledore up to now. Dumbledore was even "gotten rid of" > completely > > in CoS, if you recall. > > ::Ahem:: > > Arguing against 'Harry already manages without Dumbledore'. > Dumbledore is trying to wean Harry from expecting his help, but Harry > still isn't quite old enough/powerful enough. > > In PS/SS Harry gets Dumbledore himself in a 'nick of time' rescue. > > In CoS Harry gets less help - but he gets Fawkes and the Sorting hat. > You think Dumbledore didn't send them? They both come from his office. ------------------ No I don't. He gave Harry and Ron the cryptic instructions in Hagrid's hut, and he confirmed in the cool-down speach that it was Harry who called them, not Dumbledore sending them. ================== > > In PoA he gets...well. If you're trying to wean a boy off expecting a > miraculous helping hand, them someone he would much rather do without > is a pretty good choice. > > It's in GoF Harry has to manage on his own, aided only by the 'twin > core' nature of the wands. And does manage - but we find out later > that Dumbledore knows all about the Priori Incantatem Effect. ------------- So he knew about it. If Dumbledore was relying upon the PIE to pull Harry's bacon out of the fire, I am not impressed with his planning or wisdom. :-) ============= > > However he still needs protection afterwards from Fake!Moody. (The > real suggestion that Dumbledore was completely fooled by Fake!Moody > and his post-Voldemort kidnap is that here there doesn't seem to have > been any advance planning - just 'grab your trusted allies, kick the > door down and fight'.) > > > > > We have the seeds of the MoM stepping in and removing Dumbledore > > already at the end of GoF. Why do we need to kill him? > > > > Because it's more fun that way? :-) But we don't _*NEED*_ to kill him. :-) > > Pip > (who is beginning to suspect Dumbledore's death is an essential part > of his plan, but then she suspects everybody anyway.) ------------- You seem to be arguing that Harry is getting slowly weaned from reliance upon Dumbledore. I agree. However, that seems to be happening just fine without Dumbledore cashing in his chips. So why does he have to die? Marcus (who isn't saying that Dumbledore won't die, just that he doesn't have to.) From editor at texas.net Wed Jun 5 01:50:02 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 20:50:02 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin is an honest, nasty, DISLOYAL person (who is ever so evil) References: Message-ID: <010e01c20c33$5000f2a0$0a7663d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39406 LOON on the deck! Dicey said > [hello! he bit Padfoot!]> Point of accuracy. Hagrid says that Lupin said he never "ate anythin' las' night," not that he never bit anyone. And it had already been stated that werewolves are only dangerous to humans, which coupled with the fact that James, Sirius, and Peter could somehow control Lupin when he was a wolf, has been interpreted to mean you cannot contract lycanthropy unless you are human when bitten. --Amanda, dusting off her lovely sparkly purple LOON hat From editor at texas.net Wed Jun 5 02:01:56 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 21:01:56 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The flying motorbike References: Message-ID: <020201c20c34$f97014a0$0a7663d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39407 The fair lady said > Sirius is an outlaw, he was flying that illegal bike, flounting it. Point of accuracy. At that point, he was *not* an outlaw. --Amanda From Edblanning at aol.com Wed Jun 5 07:01:33 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 03:01:33 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin is an honest, nasty, DISLOYAL person (who is ev... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39408 In a message dated 05/06/02 02:52:26 GMT Daylight Time, editor at texas.net writes: > LOON on the deck! > > Dicey said > > > > [hello! he bit Padfoot!]> > > Point of accuracy. Hagrid says that Lupin said he never "ate anythin' las' > night," not that he never bit anyone. > Second LOON on deck! What Padfoot sustains are described as gashes and the last time we discussed this, some of us thought these were equally well, if not better described as scratches. That sounds minor, which it's not supposed to, but inflicted by claws, rather than teeth. (I'll admit that they were locked Jaw-to-jaw, but this would have prevented him actually *biting*) Some more LOONacy (because that's how I feel this morning!) Aldrea: >why he left the map where Snape could find it. >Kat argued: ><>If Snape had any bloody sense, he would have noticed the dot >labled "Peter Pettigrew."<> He couldn't see it. By this time, Pettigrew was almost certainly inside the Shack, which doesn't show on the map as it is outside the grounds. (Remember, the twins didn't know where the tunnel came out) Pippin: > Sirius chases off after Pettigrew and then, mysteriously, > hundreds of Dementors appear and attack Sirius, Hermione, > Harry and Ron. > > Think about it. There've been people wandering around the > grounds all night. Snape, Fudge, MacNair, Dumbledore, Hagrid, > Tt!Harry and Tt!Hermione . The Dementors don't bother any of > them. Then all of a sudden there are hundreds. Why? Because > werewolf!Lupin set the Dementors on our heroes. (shiver!) Can > the Dementors tell when they're dealing with a human mind in a > canid body? They can't. This has alway puzzled me, too. They are blind. Sirius is apparently, when they start to approach, still in canine form (Harry hears him howling by the lake). He didn't have long to transform and realise that they were approaching, so I don't think they waited until he transformed to start moving. So why do they focus on *him*. And *why* does he choose that moment to change back into human form. And *why* for goodness sake, doesn't he just transform back. (OK, I know that would take a lot of effort, but he was pretty debilitated when he did it in Azkaban, and this is a crisis, for goodness sake!) And another LOON point. Why does Lupin say that no-one knows what's under the Dementors' hoods except the victims? Has no-one witnessed the Dementor's Kiss? (Ans: Yes, McGonnagall, Snape and Fudge, for three. Were they the first?) And another: Why do Snape, Lupin and Harry at different points ever mention Sirius being sent back to Azkaban, when they all know that he'll receive a Dementor's Kiss before getting there? Eloise. Off to start her day, now she's got all that off her chest. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From uncmark at yahoo.com Wed Jun 5 07:04:09 2002 From: uncmark at yahoo.com (uncmark) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 07:04:09 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Charmed School Supplies Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39409 Was brainstorming with my niece (who hates it when I call her Hermione) and she asked why Hermione didn't have a magic bookbag to hold all her books in PofA or why Cedric's bookbag wasn't spelled not to tear. I had to tell her because the book would be shorter, but it got me thinking. There is probably a untapped market for charmed school supplies. I could see a Slytherin making all sorts of cheating quills; what do you suppose a determined Hermione could charm if she put her mind to it? First, a bookbag with expanded space and probably a levitation charm to compensate for extra weight. Second, I've noticed a lack of good research tools in the library. Remember how hard in was to find Nicholas Flamel in Book 1? What kinds of reserach aides would Hermione make? I'm wondering if she could in the long run make a wizard equivalent of a computer to ease access to the VAST library at Hogwarts. In the Short run she might get Dumbledore-Dispensation to charm a mundane computer to work at Hogwarts. Or personally she could charm a magic mirror ala penseive to catalog her ever-growing magical library. As you can tell, Hermione's my favorite. I'd like to see her and Ron (and maybe Ginny) challenged in OOP. The sorting hat judged them all brave enough for Griffindor. I'd like to see them triumph. Uncmark From katgirl at lava.net Wed Jun 5 07:45:45 2002 From: katgirl at lava.net (booklovinggirl) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 07:45:45 -0000 Subject: Challenges for other Gryffindors. (Was: Hermione and Charmed School Supplies) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39410 Uncmark: > As you can tell, Hermione's my favorite. I'd like to see her and Ron > (and maybe Ginny) challenged in OOP. The sorting hat judged them all > brave enough for Griffindor. I'd like to see them triumph. Hmmm...this made me think of an interesting scenario that has been half-formed in my head today. OoP. Meeting at the Weasley house. Hogwarts is being inspected by MoM. Dumbledore is trying to watch over things at Hogwarts. Harry is not present-Possibly in hospital wing? Ron is not present. His hand on the Weasley Grandfather Clock (Of "home", "school", "work", etc. fame.) is pointing to "travelling". The rest of the order is present. Ginny is watching the clock. Suddenly, his hand swings over to "lost". Ginny is about to get someone, but as she's preparing to leave the room, she happens to look over her shoulder (Old Errol, who is halfway into the grave, falls over) and notices Ron's hand twitching, as if about to move. After about 15 minutes, which feels like 15 hours, it swings over to mortal peril. Ginny realizes that she can't have half the order after Ron-it would take too long to decide who's going, and to make sure that they were all prepared, and that if they're down too many people, a good-sized group of DE's would have no trouble fighting the rest. So she grabs a broom, grabs the first person she sees-Hermione-and sets off. Any thoughts? From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com Wed Jun 5 12:43:03 2002 From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 05:43:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore Protecting the Stone Message-ID: <20020605124303.98410.qmail@web21106.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39411 Finally I got to see the Potter movie again. And a thought just came to me. No, nothing to do with the movie... Isn't the Mirror of Erised the protection that Dumbledore provided for the Stone? Then, in the first place, what was it doing in the room that Harry discovered it in? Does it mean that the Stone was not _initially_ provided protection for by Dumbledore? I know this may not imply anything but I just like to point this out. -Ron Yu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From sparklin_red at yahoo.com Wed Jun 5 14:58:54 2002 From: sparklin_red at yahoo.com (sparklin_red) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 14:58:54 -0000 Subject: Lupin is an honest, nasty, DISLOYAL person (who is evil) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39412 I am finally removing my self from the lurkerdom. I have sat in the shadows reading comments and theories. Every time I have had something to say someone has always beat me to it and rather than post a Me Too!!! comment I sit in the shadows thinking. Well congratulation Pippin you're the first to get a comment out of me. It will probably rather long because I have spent a graveyard shift at work thinking through what I was going to say Pippin so eloquently wrote about the Dementors: ~~ Think about it. There're been people wandering around the grounds all night. Snape, Fudge, MacNair, Dumbledore, Hagrid, Tt!Harry and Tt! Hermione . The Dementors don't bother any of them. Then all of a sudden there are hundreds. Why? Because werewolf!Lupin set the Dementors on our heroes. (shiver!) Can the Dementors tell when they're dealing with a human mind in a canid body? They can't. ~~ Okay here goes. ~* Cracks her knuckles to begin her typing *~ "Dementors are among the foulest creatures that walk the earth. They infest the darkest, filthiest places, they glory in Decay and despair, ~they drain peace, hope, and happiness out of the air around them. ~" COS Chapter 10 The Marauder's Map page 187 American Version And " "I don't know how I did it," he said slowly. "I think the only reason I never lost my mind is that I knew that I was innocent. That wasn't a happy thought, so the Dementors couldn't suck it out of me " COS Chapter 19 The Servant of Lord Voldemort page 371 American Version Having added that I'll now begin attacking the suspects that appear to be left alone by the Dementors. Fudge and MacNair: I'll start with these two first they are the easiest. Fudge and MacNair are very upset with the escape of Buckbeak. Such a dangerous and uncontrollable beast running around out there free. That is not a happy thought. Nor is it peaceful or hopeful. Dumbledore: Two words. No wait six words. Dumbledore can take care of himself. Tt!Harry and Tt!Hermione: They are worried about to quote Tt!Hermione (COS Hermione's Secret pg. 398 American Version) "Don't you understand? We're breaking one of the most important wizarding laws! Nobody's supposed to change time, nobody! You heard Dumbledore.." You get the point. Let's see. Happy nope, Peaceful nope, Hopeful nope, so not quite Dementor material. Snape: Now this one I can only based off of my opinion. But the way I see it is that Snape has just found out that (what he believes) Lupin has been helping Black all along. He is upset that Dumbledore did not listen to him about Lupin couldn't be trusted. Happy, Peace, or Hope, all three are negative. Of course being a good sport I have to list the opposite of this theory. That Snape is ecstatic because Lupin is a traitor. My only response is that Snape could know how to defend himself from Dementors. Hagrid: ~* Takes a moment to think *~ Hagrid is be ecstatic about Buckbeak escaping in fact he is "weak with happiness" page 402 COS Hermione's Secret. Having stated that here is my explanation. The Dementors do not actually show up until Harry is chasing the Snitch and Gryffindor was over 50 points up COS Grim Defeat pages 177-179. So I believe that the Dementors felt Hagrids Happiness faintly due to the fact that it is him and Dumbledore that are happy about it and not the 100's of Hogwarts students at the Qudditch. I believe they were zooming in on Hagrid and then Hagrid hear Moony's howl. At that point Hagrid immediately began to worry for Buckbeak's safety. So bye bye Happiness. Which at that point they began to Zoom in on . HARRY Harry is Happy because he gets to leave the Dursleys and live with Sirius. What is not Happy about that thought. And SIRIUS Sirius is thinking he gets to clear his name. Never return to Azakaban again. And Harry wants to live with him. Happy Happy Very Happy thoughts. That means the Dementors were drawn to the only current happy thoughts on the ground. Sirius and Harry. They are not allowed in the castle so they can't focus on any there. One additional point for your Lupin is Evil plot. " Severus Snape was pulling off the Invisibility Cloak, his wand point directly at Lupin." COS Chapter 18 Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, Prongs page 357 American Version Why is Snape's wand pointed directly at Lupin and not at Sirius who is the escaped prisoner???? Congratulations once again Pippin. Now that I am out I just won't stop. That is until I run out of things to say which I have. Sparklin Red (Wonder how exactly you join LOON?) From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Wed Jun 5 15:21:28 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 11:21:28 -0400 Subject: Canon disagreement; author intent Message-ID: <474410FA.5F7B405C.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39413 I wrote: > > > What does it mean, and how is it possible to say, that say) > > 'Dumbledore is evil' is an unlikely reading of canon, or a perverse > > one? How can we say that a given interpretation is 'subversive'? If > > I assert that the reading you find subversive is my instinctive > > reading (something of the sort must occur on the R/H - H/H divide, > > I think), are you reduced to saying 'fine for you, David', or have > > you any rational basis for persuading me different? > Elkins replied: > Well, subversion itself is really in the mind of the beholder (as is > instinct). > > Indeed, my initial emotional response to the discovery that one of my > own instinctive understandings of the story ("Snape is still > emotionally invested in his old DE colleagues") was not only a > minority opinion, but also assumed by many to be deliberate > subversion, was to feel both taken aback and rather out of sorts. > (My secondary response, of course, was to become fascinated by the > issue and so to pester everyone on the subject until they all got > tired of it -- but that's just me.) > > One man's painfully earnest reading is another man's subversion. I can see that the fact that people go for subversive (ie deliberately against their own instinctive reading) interpretation can lead to subsequent confusion when others fail to spot the deliberate element. (Can I just mention what I never had time to before, that I concur with your view of Snape and the DEs, and always have done: indeed I think there is probably evidence in the form of my posts last year dealing with possible reasons for his nastiness to Neville (resents auror father) and reaction to hearing Malfoy's name (had really hoped Lucius had left all that DE stuff behind). After all, the DEs are his own former self; to show no mercy now would imply he should have had none from Dumbledore. These are books about good and evil, not political manoeuvring: Snape didn't cross the floor, he had a *conversion*.) However, my real concern was opposing instinctive readings. Now I begin to think about it, the term instinctive is a little seductive, isn't it? Instincts are those things we did not need to learn. Language (not the idea of it, but any specific language) is learned, as is reading. If different readings really *were* instinctive, like different shaped birds' nests, we really would be just throwing rocks and saying 'tis, 'tisn't at each other - or ignoring each other. (And to coin a phrase: they say Elkins is obsessed with getting to the bottom of things, but she's got *nothing* on David Frankis.) > > So, yes. "Fine for you, David" really is about as far as that > particular dispute can go. > > Generally speaking, though, when people stand accused of favoring > "subversive" or "perverse" readings on this list, they respond by > trying to point out the ways in which the text does indeed support > their instinctive reading. In short, they launch into literary > analysis. > > Most literary analysis operates under the assumption that texts > suggest meaning to readers in accordance with fairly consistent and > predictable rules, and that that this process is therefore, while > admittedly not nearly as quantifiable as physics or chemistry, > nonetheless still *explicable.* Literary analysis attempts > to "defend" a given reading by showing how the text adheres > to established rules of authorial conveyance. ...and different people have different rules. In the academic world (I presume) this is formalised into schools. In the fandom, without a deal of forbearance, it degenerates into shipping wars. These rules (almost certainly a partial and open ended set) are encapsulated in our 'instinctive' readings. Where do they come from? I would suggest two things: the way language is used to report and interpret reality, and then, almost certainly derived from this, the 'genre expectations' that we have. Putting this together with Elkins' previous post on fannish reading, we now possibly have all the pieces in place for constructive debate on canon issues: - the Potterverse is not real, it is an illusion created in the mind of each reader by the interaction of their 'rules' with JKR's text; - therefore, any discussion of a supposed fact in the Potterverse must take account of potentially divergent rules - indeed, if we all have the same text (some debates in the past have been voided by the discovery that they turned on a difference between the US and the UK text: for an amusing example, search the archive on the words enervate and ennervate.), the only other source of difference must be in the underlying model of reality into which the rules translate the text in the readers' minds. This has been very useful to me, because it helps me understand why canon is almost never any use in settling disputes. In mature debates (not necessarily conducted in a mature manner!), one side will cite canon in support of their view. The other side then 'explains away' that canon, and cites different canon, to be explained away by the first side in turn. Neither side appears capable of stepping back and looking at the whole lot from scratch: because their rules have been internalised. Even if a broadminded reader re-examines the text taking the opposing side's interpretation as a given (oddly enough, if the Potterverse *were* real, this would be the approach suggested by the Popperian philosophy of science - I would be interested to hear if any fans have seriously tried this, e.g. a firm H/Her reading GOF determined to try to interpret everything in an H/R way), they will find themselves frustrated by their own rule system, which will keep forcing them back on to their former interpretation. What these debates need to do, if the adherents of one interpretation really hope to win over any of their opponents, is to focus on the rules of interpretation. The corollary is that one has to put one's own rules into play for negotiation, ie be prepared to be 'wrong'. Note: I am not saying that all HPFGU debate should take this form; just that a fair proportion either consciously or unconsciously is trying to persuade the other side in an argument: such debaters may find themselves more effective if they take this approach, at the cost of sometimes having to change their minds. > So, for example, while I did not myself find Draco/Hermione at all an > instinctive reading of the text, once I learned that so many people > had found it to be one, I was tempted to return to the text to try to > figure out *how* it had managed to suggest that possibility to so > many of its readers. Similarly, while H/H is not at all an > instinctive reading for me, its vast popularity leads me to believe > that the text is indeed offering its readers *something* to support > that reading. The shipping debates on this list offer quite a few > insights into the specific critical "rules" that have led so many to > come by this reading. I would be interested to hear those insights (for both sides). My own view is that the idea that JKR identifies with Hermione is a post hoc argument, not part of what fans would normally bring to the text. The best I have been able to come up with is that it is related to readers' perception of the ideal relationship, i.e. the model of reality into which the rules translate the text. This, IMO, counts for more than readers' experiences of romance. However, my experience is different from yours: I usually become deeply frustrated because I *can't* infer the thinking behind the canon-based arguments, so these debates don't produce insight for me, they produce frustration. Another hoary debate is over Hermione's age: is she nearly 11 or nearly 12 at the begining of PS? It has produced some pretty impassioned writing on both sides. However, when interested listies outside the debate asked (more than once) why it mattered, hardly anyone was able to explain it - only Penny really rose to the challenge, and she struggled, IMO. > Of course, literary criticism is not a science but an art, which > means that not only the rules themselves but also the way in which > they are prioritized can vary tremendously depending on the "school" > of analysis one favors. A Jungian critic will privilege certain > rules of textual suggestion very highly indeed, while devaluing (or > even rejecting completely) others. Now, I couldn't possibly call myself Jungian, but it was great fun for me to throw out all my usual 'Faith' type of approach to the text and go overboard on a colourful manipulation of the symbolic material in my Hagrid, Sleeping Woman, and Sirus Black posts. (See messages 36704, 37446, and the last part of 38315.) However, when people contested what I said, I found it hard to sustain the approach as my rules were pretty implicit - I couldn't access the ground of my feeling that Hagrid's gatekeeping functions are not the same as general foreshadowing, for example. Critical approaches also > change with the era, they go in and out of fashion. As Penny pointed > out, most of the popular schools of contemporary literary criticism > don't accord the author's conscious intent much pride of place at > *all* when it comes to prioritizing the rules. The same could not be > said a century ago, and whether it will still hold true a century > from now is anyone's guess. Life is short, art long, and literary > criticism something in between. ;-) Ah, but we can put her intent into perspective. It is another interpretation. Whether it is authoritative or not is, I take it, a matter of reader choice, but we don't have to follow fashion. If she is consciously aware of alternative systems of interpretation, she may find ways to force these to be self-contradictory, e.g. by making the direction of Hermione's affections explicit, or more subtly, by manipulating 'subtexts' to cancel each other out thus forcing the reader to re-evaluate their aproach to 'instinctive' reading. > Elkins to me again: > > I'd advise you to avoid the post-modern theorists. They will likely > distress you. Ah, no, that would be a reason for reading them. Either I face them at a time of my choosing, or I run away, and they catch me at a time when I least want it. > After all, sollipsism is a *very* popular reading of reality among > the text's adolescent readership. There therefore must be > *something,* either embedded in the text itself or in the way in > which the text interacts with cultural and societal factors, that is > serving to encourage that reading. Right? > Ah, I think *that* is obvious. JKR presents a world which is supposed to lie concealed in ours, and asks us to identify with a character who feels alienated in our world, and is suddenly introduced to the concealed one. If we suspend disbelief far enough, then we may enter the concealed world - but we won't find anyone else there: solipsism. Finally, Elkins, in an earlier post, wrote: > Authors are > very rarely the best interpreters of their own works, nor are their >interpretations necessarily any more valid than anyone else's. >Indeed, authors are often *notoriously* oblivious to the true import >of what they themselves have written. > The fanfic writers on the list will surely back me up here. I > imagine that most of them have stories to tell about those times that >their readers have commented on a powerful running motif, or a strong >thematic implication in their work, and by doing so just *astonished* >them, because they themselves had no conscious awareness of having >put that in there at all. Everybody who has ever written fiction has >had this happen to them. It's par for the course. It is also, in my >experience, a large part of what makes the act of writing itself such >a profound and personal endeavor. Not *that* notorious: it was news to me. Thank goodness somebody mentioned it! If so, writing is a very different endeavour from the one I conceived it to be. Indeed I have less idea than ever what it is that authors actually *do*. And it does put a very different complexion on the idea of authorial intent if authors themselves are prepared to admit that there are things in their works that they did not consciously put there. None of the fanfic writers commented on this, IIRC, but I will take their silence as consent - I would welcome anecdotes offlist. 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 dfrankiswork at netscape.net Wed Jun 5 15:27:47 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 15:27:47 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Neville and Foreshadowing Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39414 Faith is on the phone. She has just received a letter that David passed on from Cindy, and has phoned to see what he thinks. David is contactable because he has a phone Cindy gave him: @------((() Faith is concerned that David is unsound on foreshadowing. All this slightly fretful talk about coherence suggests to her that he *wants* foreshadowing and clues and author manipulation, he just doesn't know how to pick it out. Faith reads out from Cindy's letter: > You know, this No Memory Charm At All theory has some superficial appeal. For one thing, it is neat and clean. There are no messy loose ends here. Neville is just Neville. He has weaknesses just like other characters have weaknesses. In Neville's case, he is motivated by Fear of Power and Fear of Magic. You don't even have to get into whether Neville witnessed his parents' torture. > There's a certain logic there. And a certain appeal. There really is. > No, where Faith gets into trouble (and yes, strays from canon) is that Faith would have us believe that things happen in HP for no real reason pertinent to important plot developments. > That just doesn't work for me. I mean, when JKR includes lots of meaningless details, they aren't for the most part meaningless. No, almost *everything* in HP is there for a reason. She's always including details in one book to set something up in another book, as we all know. Faith drums her fingers on the phone. She knows he's going to let her down. He says "Hm, I agree with Cindy that there are details that are meaningful later on. And that means that any detail *might* be significant later." Faith sighs. She knew it. David goes on: "But I don't think 'most part' is right. Take Knocturn Alley. I think it's a racing certainty we'll see Knockturn Alley again. I think too we'll see some of the Dark things Harry saw, and they may be significant. But *most*? The Hand of Glory: 75% chance, I'd say. That necklace? The fingernails? The shrunken heads? Flesh eating slug repellant? Not only is it pressing credibility too far that they are all pivotal somewhere, it will ultimately make for a weird reading experience. We need *some* background that is purely background. At least *one* Hogwarts pet could do with being just a pet. At least one Hogwarts professor should turn out to be a career teacher with nothing more on their mind than pedagogic proficiency. Just like *someone* should turn out to have innocently committed crimes under Imperius. If the series ends up being all foreground it will take on the nightmare quality of an Ionesco play - I just don't believe it." Faith asks: "So are you just going to let Cindy have all those Neville points just like that?" David: "Well, let's look at them:" > Neville has a Toad for no real reason. Faith: "Crookshanks is special. Scabbers was special. Hedwig and Pig are magical owls. Fawkes is a magical bird. Mrs Norris is decidedly suspicious - even I admit that. Trevor *can't* be unusual as well! It's too much!" David: "Steady on! Hedwig and Pig aren't really unusual by WW standards, are they? Owls are supposed to be like that. They have this magic. So are Phoenices. Crookshanks too, if we believe JKR's statements that he is part-kneazle. So there might be room for Trevor to be more than a typical WW toad. Verdict: undecided" Faith puts the phone back to her ear, having jerked it away at the mention of JKR. > He is forgetful for no real reason. Faith: "I might cut Cindy some slack here. He is always being introduced as forgetful, much as I dislike this pseudo-prophetic view of life" David shifts uncomfortably: "To be honest (and don't tell the HPFGU people, will you) I hadn't *noticed* that Neville is forgetful. Yes, yes, I know, the Remembrall, the password list, I did read those passages. But I didn't see forgetfulness as his defining characteristic. If you had asked me what sort of boy he is, I would have said 'clumsy', or even 'magical-learning-impaired'. I never believed the fa?ade of almost-squibness and he's not stupid, so I had him down as the class dysmagic, to coin a phrase. He's got it, but he can't put it together. Forgetfulness just passed me by. But this is the big one, since Bertha is forgetful, and Mr, er, I've forgotten his name, at the World Cup becomes forgetful-seeming. Verdict: Cindy has a point." > He is competent in only one subject for no real reason. Faith: "Hoy! Canon, please? Yes, his Herbology is so good it cancels his Potions, but given that he passes overall, he can't be a total dud. McGonagall is displeased or frustrated at times, but is it really so?" David: "and significance too? Is it a case of his leaky magical power only coming through in Herbology, or is something more envisaged? Verdict: Requires further explanation." > He is shaken after meeting with Crouch Jr. for no real reason. Faith: "Er, I don't remember that bit - do you have a canon handy?" David: "No, but I can get one. Hang on a sec." David puts down the receiver, exits the booth, catches a bus to the harbour, buys a ticket, boards the liner the next day, travels for three days, and finally gets to theory bay. He runs up the beach, past the booth where Faith is still waiting by the phone, into the canon museum and up to the fourth floor, where he eventually finds a canon, in room 14. It says: "They went up to the dormitory to fetch their books and charts, and found Neville there alone, sitting on his bed, reading. He looked a good deal calmer than at the end of Moody's lesson, though still not entirely normal. His eyes were rather red. 'You all right, Neville?' Harry asked him. 'Oh yes,' said Neville, 'I'm fine, thanks. Just reading this book Professor Moody lent me...' " David memorises the words, runs back to the liner, sails back and catches the bus home and picks up the receiver. @------((() "Nope, that's not canon. He is not shaken. Verdict: Cindy is a paddle short of an armchair." > Snape is his greatest fear for no real reason. Faith: "Yes, Snape is horrible to him in Potions. There is no other reason." David: "No, I think there is something to this, or if not, to the fact that putting Boggart-Snape in his grandmother's clothes is what deals with the fear. Witness Dumbledore's Christmas cracker. Verdict: this is foreshadowing on some level." Faith: "Hey, how come you get to do all the verdicts?" David: "It's my male way of providing comfort. Any other questions?" Faith sighs. She puts the phone down for a minute to consult Cindy's letter again: @------((() > Someone needs to explain to Faith that once JKR has Banged in a certain way, she is never allowed to Bang in that fashion ever again. JKR cannot have another Animagus-Based or Polyjuice-Based Bang. It would never, ever work. As Faith correctly says, repetitive Banging is really boring. No, JKR must Bang completely differently in OoP. That may well be the hold-up in getting the book finished. Faith sighs again. She feels so *misunderstood*. Taking up the receiver again, she says "Tell Cindy that I didn't mean that all bangs are the same. I mean that the *same* bang is boring, second time round. Bangy doesn't give a reason to re-read. L.O.O.N.y does. Subtle character clues unfolding does. Seeing Moody as Crouch does. But Bangy just goes from flat to floppy." She puts the phone down again, permanently this time. @------((() References to Faith and banging are to be found in the Files section at HypotheticAlley. From Edblanning at aol.com Wed Jun 5 16:14:20 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 12:14:20 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin is an honest, nasty, DISLOYAL person (who is ev... Message-ID: <9e.275870ef.2a2f92dc@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39415 Sparklin Red: > One additional point for your Lupin is Evil plot. > > " Severus Snape was pulling off the Invisibility Cloak, his wand > point directly at Lupin." > COS Chapter 18 Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, Prongs page 357 American > Version > > Why is Snape's wand pointed directly at Lupin and not at Sirius who > is the escaped prisoner???? > Because, I would suggest, Lupin is the one with a wand tucked into his belt, whilst Sirius is unarmed, and because Snape *knows* that Lupin is unsafe, having failed to take his potion. He has to get past Lupin, in order to tackle Sirius. His wand points straight between Sirius' eyes, as soon as he has controlled Lupin. Eloise Wondering how Snape *could* have immediately thought that Sirius had Confunded the trio, when he was the only person in the scenario without a wand. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From heidi at barefootpuppets.com Wed Jun 5 12:19:10 2002 From: heidi at barefootpuppets.com (barefootpuppets) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 12:19:10 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore does not HAVE to die. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39416 > Marcus (who isn't saying that Dumbledore won't die, just that he > doesn't have to.) Well, "have to" is pretty strong. Nothing "has to" happen unless JKR makes it so. But you must admit that there was a lot of foreshadowing of Dumbledore looking older than ever in GoF. And Dumbledore spoke of death in Book 1 as the "next adventure." But I would argue that Dumbledore does need to go. Just like Obi Wan had to go. It's the only way for Harry to meet his *destiny* -- whatever the heck that is! Maybe not die, but at least be unavailable. (re: Gandalf) I believe that the foreshadowing in GoF is indicative of Dumbledore's death. (I should look up all the instances, it's more than just one!) Heidi R. From chetah27 at hotmail.com Wed Jun 5 13:39:13 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 13:39:13 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Protecting the Stone In-Reply-To: <20020605124303.98410.qmail@web21106.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39417 Ronald Rae Yu wrote: > Isn't the Mirror of Erised the protection that > Dumbledore provided for the Stone? As far as we know, yes. In the chapter during which Harry wakes up in the Hospital Wing, Dumbledore does admit to the use of the mirror as being his idea. Ronald Rae Yu wrote: Then, in the first > place, what was it doing in the room that Harry > discovered it in? That Sly old Dumbledore...he gave Young Harry an Invisibility Cloak so he may roam the castle at night, then conveniently leaves the Mirror lying around so that Harry can find it. It seems Dumbledore suspected all along that Harry would go after the Stone, so I guess he left the Mirror there for Harry to figure out what it does before he faces it again at the end of the book(infact, Dumbledore makes sure Harry knows exactly what the Mirror does). Of course, that doesn't quite make much sense...if Dumbledore knew someone was trying to take the Stone, then why didn't he move it? I suppose to that you could argue that he was giving Harry a bit of training. Although, that is a rather big gamble. *shrugs* I'm not sure he had to go to all that trouble...he did infact say that whoever wanted to find the Stone, and not use it, would be able to get it out of the Mirror. I wonder...what if Harry hadn't had part of his thirst for his parents quenched in the beginning of the book? Would he still have seen the Stone in the Mirror? Ronald Rae Yu wrote: Does it mean that the Stone was not > _initially_ provided protection for by Dumbledore? I > know this may not imply anything but I just like to > point this out. Hmm...I never actually realized the Time Span involved. It does seem as though the Stone spent half the year at Hogwarts without any protection from Dumbledore- that is, if Dumbledore provided no temporary defense while the Mirror was busy elsewhere. From chetah27 at hotmail.com Wed Jun 5 15:32:45 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 15:32:45 -0000 Subject: More on- Lupin is NOT an honest, nasty, DISLOYAL person who is Ever So Evil! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39418 Pippin: > How did Crouch!Moody, who's never taught a lesson in his life, > get so good at teaching DADA? Lupin taught him. He *is* a good > teacher. I know someone else already answered this and said that Crouch!Moody would be good at DADA because of his experiences in the Dark Arts. Crouch himself was a very loyal DE to Voldemort, so there's his experience. Also, Crouch had to keep up the appearance of Moody- and Moody was an Aurora, so naturally he would kow lots about the Dark Arts, and the Unforgivable Curses. Therefore, he has to keep up the role of a good DADA teacher. > He does have one rather frightening hobby: he makes pets out of > Dark Creatures and then kills them. We know what happened to > the Boggart in the wardrobe. But what happened to the > Grindylow, eh? Why put in the detail of the empty case? (shiver) Hey now, if you're gonna feel sorry for the Boggart and the Grindylow, then what about those poor Flubberworms? They died from too much lettuce...what a sad way to go. =P And also, if you want to get technical, Lupin doesn't kill the Boggart in the wardrobe- Neville does. And it's not like he acted alone: the whole class was there wearing out the Boggart until Nevill finally finished it off. Anyways, who's to say Lupin didn't get the Grindylow from the lake and afterwards returned it there? > Lupin figures that the Trio will go down to see Hagrid the night of > the execution, which, ever so conveniently is going to be a full > moon. He knows that Sirius is lurking on the grounds, because > he's seen him on the map. He guesses that Sirius will try to > contact Harry. This is Lupin's big chance. Not only will he kill > Sirius, he will save Harry Potter. Perfect! He takes his potion, but > secretly. And how does he save Harry, exactly? Harry is in no danger from Sirius. Plus, I still don't see a clear motive for Lupin to kill Sirius. You said: <>And Voldemort sends Lupin to find and murder Sirius who killed his servant Peter.<> But as already said, why would Voldemort waste all that effort on Peter Pettigrew, sniveling rat we see him to be? And Voldemort's actions in GoF to Peter certainly show no trace of fondness. > Lupin's got to have an explanation for this. He sees everyone > enter the willow, and he gets a brilliant idea. He leaves the > activated map on the table and runs out toward the Shack, > knowing Snape will come to give him the potion, see him on the > map and follow him just as he did twenty years before. That's a rather shaky plan, don't you think? What if Snape comes to give him the Potion after he's already disappeared off the map inside the Shack? And why would he want Snape following him anyways... He knows Snape just can't mind his own business, but he also knows how smart and cunning Snape is- why would he just invite someone who could be that dangerous to his plans along? Pippin: <>As soon as the moon comes out, Lupin will transform and kill them, all except Harry. Yes, even under the influence of the potion, because, alas! Lupin's human mind is just as twisted and evil as his werewolf one. "It is our choices, not our abilities..."<> Well, that's certainly overly believing in one's abilities. Lupin thinks he can take on two full fledged wizards plus three in training (Harry certainly isn't going to stand by and watch his friends die)? Hmm...and all in werewolf form, you say? Well, that's certainly something. From divaclv at aol.com Wed Jun 5 15:48:29 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 15:48:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore does not HAVE to die. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39419 > You seem to be arguing that Harry is getting slowly weaned from > reliance upon Dumbledore. I agree. However, that seems to be > happening just fine without Dumbledore cashing in his chips. So why > does he have to die? > > Marcus (who isn't saying that Dumbledore won't die, just that he > doesn't have to.) Because, as I said before, it forces the stakes to a whole new level. It's all the difference between, say, preparing for an national emergency and having a couple commercial jets crash into the most prominent piece of the cityscape. If Dumbledore is gone--and I mean really gone, not just unemployed or distracted--it signifys a severe crisis in the good guys' camp, and what has been a matter of growing up gradually becomes "sink-or-swim", not just for Harry but for a lot of other people as well. Dramatically speaking, having Dumbledore die carries more weight. Of course, given the tendency for the deceased to crop up here and there in the series, one could argue that even Dumbledore's death won't remove him from the equation entirely. I sometimes think this is going to be the ultimate purpose of the Penseive--that Dumbledore's "wisdom" will still be with Harry et al. even when the man himself no longer is. ~Christi From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Wed Jun 5 17:20:06 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 17:20:06 -0000 Subject: Boggart powers and the moon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39420 Elkins wrote: > > > > Hmmm? What's that you say? You want to know about the dimming of > > > the lights? > > > > > > Er. Yes. Well. I think *that* is probably a ::coughFLINTcough:: > > > manifestation of Harry's spontaneous magic. Pip essayed: > > > The Boggart seems to have the ability to reach into people's minds > >and tap into their darkest fears, taking on the appearance of those > >fears. In which case the dimming of the lights and the cold are all > >part of the Boggart's powers of illusion. > > > > And Amy Z's contribution: > I think the Boggart really does a very impressive Dementor imitation, > complete with doused lights and genuine cold for the classroom and > nightmarish memories for Lupin (allowing those of us who particularly want > to wrap our arms around him and murmur "there, there" to get our sadistic > little jollies imagining what they might be) as well as ill effects for > Harry. There is a fourth possibility, which combines elements of all these: the Boggart uses Harry's magic to create the Dementor effect. So it's similar to a psychosomatic effect in that the chosen manifestation (Dementor) is out of Harry's experience, it's Harry's magic but not spontaneous, and because Harry really does have magical powers the effects, including those on Harry himself, are real. I think this explanation has the merit that the Boggart's powers are limited by its victims' (including the limiting case that Muggles appear not to be plagued at all), while allowing for real effects to be witnessed by others. I see no real difference between 'appearance' (such as turning into a spider) and 'effect' (such as dimming lights) here: either requires magic. Without knowing more about the precise nature of lycanthropy (magical parasites who are unaffected by the Boggart?) it is impossible to say what effect on Lupin the Boggart would have if not dealt with. But IMO the fact that, as his greatest fear, it takes on the appearance of the moon suggests that being exposed to the full moon is a factor in Lupin's transformation, in support of the 'natural' (dodges canon- interpretation brickbats) reading that he transformed because the moon came out. Incidentally, a while ago, there was discussion of magical things, and somebody said that there are plenty of magical beings, beasts and plants, but could not think of any magical objects other than those derived from these or charmed by wizards. Does the moon count as a 'natural' magical object? Amy again: Here are a few, simpler explanations for why Lupin doesn't > transform: and another: Lupin is teaching third-year magic. As teacher he prepares before the lesson by doing a more advanced spell to allow himself to control (back in its case), as opposed to merely counter the Boggart. David From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Wed Jun 5 17:53:47 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 18:53:47 +0100 Subject: Dumbledore does not HAVE to die - alternatives please References: Message-ID: <008c01c20cb9$f15110a0$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 39421 > Maybe not die, but at least be unavailable. (re: Gandalf) > I believe that the foreshadowing in GoF is indicative of Dumbledore's death. (I should look up all the instances, it's more than just one!) > > Heidi R. I suppose Dumbledore's death is the easy way to go about it. I thought about this some time ago as everyone seemed hell-bent on killing of D'dore * via foreshadowing * in order to get Harry to his moment of destiny and I thought - No, that's a copy out, its too easy - and JKR has not really avoided tough actions before now. The real puzzle would be how to go about * life the universe and Potterverse * if she did NOT kill Dumbledore off. Felicia Still recovering from being the dedicatee of one of 2002's finest filks!! Ta Coriolan!! From bak42 at netzero.net Wed Jun 5 18:00:12 2002 From: bak42 at netzero.net (bak42) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 11:00:12 -0700 Subject: TBAY: Lily & Petunia's Parents Message-ID: <000501c20cba$d8cc1920$87023a41@bak42> No: HPFGUIDX 39422 Brandon paddles out into Theory Bay on a driftwood log he found on the shore to introduce his first theory. I was watching the movie when an interesting thought crossed my mind. What if the reason that Mr. & Mrs. Evans were so proud of Lily's magical ability is because their lack of magic wasn't from being Muggles but because they're Squibs and therefore Lily was the closest they would ever get to doing magic themselves. P.S. Could I get an acronym for this theory? --------------------------- Brandon -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GU d- s+:-- a-- C++>$ U? L(-) E? W++ N? o? K? w+ !O M-- V? PS(+) PE Y PGP- t++ 5++ X- R tv++ b+++ DI+++ D+ G e(*) h! !r !z+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 4/19/02 From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 5 18:10:37 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 18:10:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore does not HAVE to die - alternatives please In-Reply-To: <008c01c20cb9$f15110a0$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39423 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Felicia Rickmann" > > The real puzzle would be how to go about > * life the universe and Potterverse * if she did NOT kill Dumbledore off. > I've been thinking about that myself the last couple of days. One possibility would be Dumbledore losing his magical powers -- either as a result of some preliminary confrontation with Voldemort, or voluntarily giving them up for some reason (transferring them to Harry, perhaps?) That would remove him from his role as super-powerful protector without killing him off. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jun 5 18:43:45 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 18:43:45 -0000 Subject: Replies to Lupin is an honest, nasty disloyal... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39424 Let's see. A few more flamingos have flapped in, only to be greeted by an impressive array of sharp sticks. But are they sharp enough? Naama thinks so: >>OK, Pippin. I think I've got something here: It doesn't make sense that Voldemort would send Lupin to kill Sirius. He would have no other motive than to avenge Peter, and what does he care about Peter? << Ouch! We don't really have a good motive for Voldemort to make a special effort to kill Sirius. But, wait, Dicentra counters that Lupin could have a personal grudge against Sirius. That would fit. Maybe Sirius told James that Lupin had turned against them, and that's why there were no pictures of Lupin at the wedding. Now Voldemort needs another reason to send Lupin to Hogwarts. Could he have learned about Pettigrew? We know the Prophet circulates overseas because Hermione saw it in France. Maybe Lupin saw the picture in the Prophet also. So, Lupin recognizes Peter, whom he and Voldemort had thought to be dead, (why should they not?). Perhaps in the very same issue is the advertisement for a DADA teacher which Dumbledore owled to the Prophet at the end of CoS. The Weasleys are travelling in Egypt but the article says that Ron is going to be at Hogwarts. As Sirius points out, Voldemort's servants are very angry at Peter, and they'd be after him, only they think he's dead. So Lupin owls to Dumbledore, applying for the Dark Arts job. Only after he gets it does he learn that Sirius has escaped. He can learn from Dumbledore that Sirius is on his way to Hogwarts also. That gets rid of the problem of having to commit murder under Albus Dumbledore's nose. Sirius isn't coming to kill Harry, as Dumbledore thinks. He's coming to get Pettigrew. (Lupin has been manipulating Sirius for a long time, he knows how Sirius thinks. )Lupin can just sit back and let Sirius do the job. This is going to be fun! Lupin finds himself in Harry's compartment. Frustratingly enough, Scabbers is right there, hiding in Ron's pocket (and no wonder!) but Lupin can't make a grab for him without revealing himself. So he waits, amusing himself with his hobbies of Snape, Harry and Dark creature torture, while Scabbers remains in Gryffindor Tower, which even Lupin cannot enter without the passwords. Lupin admits that he considered whether to tell Dumbledore about Sirius' knowledge of the castle, but didn't think he could risk losing Dumbledore's trust (how true!). This would also be the reason that Lupin doesn't simply tell Dumbledore about Peter himself. He also says he convinced himself that Sirius was getting into the Castle using Dark Arts he'd learned from Voldemort, which is a little iffy, but could be true. After all just because a wizard doesn't use dark magic doesn't mean he can't, right? Then he hears, possibly from Hagrid, that Ron's rat is dead. So indeed, he does think that Sirius has killed Pettigrew. Mission accomplished...until he sees Pettigrew on the map. But Naama has another stick: >>>Also, when Voldemort describe his long years as Noxious Gas, he says: "And then, not even a year ago, when I had almost abandoned hope, it happened at last ... a servant returned to me: Wormtail here ... " (GoF, graveyard scene) But if Lupin had already been there, then it had happened once before - that a servant returned to him. But he says, "it happened at last", meaning it hadn't happened until then (right?). <<< And Ish chimes in, to tell us villains never lie in their Tell All scenes. But Voldemort does. It seems to be the one page of the Evil Overlord Manual he has taken to heart. This is established, first by Harry in SS/PS: **"Your parents died begging me for mercy." "LIAR!" Harry shouted suddenly.** And indeed Voldemort is lying, for though Lily begged mercy for her innocent son, James did not. His last words were "I'll hold him off--" << And then just in case we didn't get it, JKR gave the game away herself, in a Barnes and Noble chat of October 2000. (courtesy of Aberforth's search engine) ***[Q]In Chamber of Secrets, Hagrid is supposed to have raised werewolf cubs under his bed. Are these the same kind of werewolves as Professor Lupin? [A] No. Riddle was telling lies about Hagrid, just slandering him.*** So, not only does Riddle lie, he lies about *werewolves*. Oh dear, this is not going as planned. Naama's stick has a beak and feathers and is looking decidedly pinkish. Plus Voldemort probably thinks of Lupin as a pet, not a servant. And it would do no good to have Lupin try to abduct or persuade another Death Eater. The others don't know he's a Death Eater. None of them would trust a werewolf. And Voldemort needs a *willing* servant for his rebirthing potion. Wouldn't it be wonderful, if, when push comes to shove in Book 7, Voldemort falls because he considers Pettigrew a more reliable servant than his loyal werewolf? And even gave him a silver hand, just to make sure? I wrote: > Yep, Lupin is extremely reluctant to touch Harry, not surprising > since the last Voldemort employee who tried it got fried. Better > wait till Harry is unconscious and try it then. PoA Ch. 12 Naama: >>>Yeah, but come on,that was because Voldemort was inhabiting his body. And Voldemort knows this. No, the protection is only against Voldemort, and he knows it. If Lupin is doing Voldemort's bidding then he would know this as well."<<< Nope. Everybody knows that Voldemort doesn't understand this mother love stuff very well. That's what the famous gleam is all about. If I were Lupin it would behoove me to be cautious, and touch Harry for the first time while he was unconscious. That way, if my finger blistered , I could say I burnt it on the kettle. But there could be other interpretations. Maybe Lupin was having a Gollum moment, and felt a brief stab of pity for the victim who looks so much like his childhood friend. On to the attack on Sirius. The Dementors didn't come during all the commotion of Scabber's escape from Crookshanks and Sirius' attack on Ron. Sirius says it's very hard for them to perceive an animal's emotions, yet they are able to close in on him in dog form that night after he's managed to elude them for ten months, not to mention escaping from the hordes that infest Azkaban. The Dementors have to be telepathic, I think. How would they speak with only a gaping shapeless hole for a mouth? Since Lupin still has his human mind, he just thinks a happy thought (that fellow over there with the dog mind is Sirius Black. Sic 'em!) and the Dementors swarm to their prey, draining the magic from Sirius so that he's forced back into human form. They wouldn't have been drawn by Sirius alone. Sirius says it's very difficult for them to detect animals. Not only that, Pettigrew has just escaped and Sirius is gashed and bleeding. He wouldn't be happy about that. Then there's the Map and the question of why Lupin left it with Harry. It would have been easier for Lupin to pass it straight to Crouch, if Lupin had only known about Crouch. But no one does, until Bertha's memory charm is broken by Voldemort. That, of course, doesn't happen till Peter captures her, long after he and Lupin have left Hogwarts. It's been made clear to us that the map *could* be a vehicle of dark magic. Lupin had his hands on it for a while. He may have tampered with it. Even if the Map had no dark magic in it before, it may have now. So, revised version of the Shack: Lupin thinks his mission is accomplished. He decides to get Snape out of the way as a parting blow, and comes up with his pretend to not take the potion plan. He watches the map, keeping his eye on Snape. That way he'll know when it's time to leave for the willow. He's watching Snape, not Harry, so he never even notices the other Harry and Hermione on the map. But just as Snape is coming for him, he sees Peter, coming out of Hagrid's hut. And there's Sirius...and all heading for the willow. How convenient. He leaves the Map behind as intended, to lure Snape. Aldrea: >>>Lupin thinks he can take on two full fledged wizards plus three in training(Harry certainly isn't going to stand by and watch his friends die)? Hmm...and all in werewolf form, you say? Well, that's certainly something.<<< The werewolf is a XXXXX known wizard-killer, according to FBAWTFT. In werewolf form Lupin ought to be able handle himself, considering only one of his prey will be fully trained and equipped with a wand. Look how many wizards it takes to stun a dragon. Lupin's got nothing to worriy about, except that Snape insists on believing he's there to help Sirius kill Harry. Lupin couldn't have predicted that. Further to the map, Ish quotes: >>>Moody's magical eye whizzed over the entire surface of the map. He looked suddenly alarmed." Why, if he was told about the map by one of its co-creators, was he so surprised (or rather, alarmed) that his true identity had shown up? It doesn't fit.<<<<< Crouch is *acting*...nothing shows on his face that he doesn't put there. I suppose his alarm was genuine enough. He's just had a pretty close call. He decides to let Harry see his reaction, since the map is a highly unusual object, and it would look wrong if he wasn't surprised by it. But I think Crouch took a calculated risk in coming to the school knowing about the Map. He has his magical eye, so Harry can't sneak up on him. He knows Harry's unlikely to be using the map when classes are in session...he's not in the habit of cutting. And should Harry check the map at random, he'll see the dot for the real Moody just where he would expect it to be..in Moody's office.(shiver) As to why Moody needed to collude with Lupin in order to learn how to teach, isn't it one of Rowling's points that there's a great deal more to teaching a subject than just knowing it? Otherwise, Hagrid, Snape, and Binns would be as good as McGonagall and Sprout. Katherine asks bout the prank: >>>Ah, but if Remus didn't want Snape to know, why did he set up the Prank in the first place? He might have just wanted to finish Snape off but had a plan that backfired, but you say that Remus wants to finish off Snape because he's scared Snape will reveal the secret, right? But how can he be scared of this if Snape *doesn't know* the secret?<<<< The answer is that Snape doesn't know the secret *yet*. The trouble is, he's seen Lupin being taken to the willow and he knows that Lupin disappears every month. From now on, he'll be watching the willow and that means no more midnight outings. But Lupin lives for those. They have become the only thing that makes his transformations bearable. To give them up now is unthinkable. So he gets Sirius who "thought it would be, er, amusing", to give away the secret of the willow for him. Sirius thinks it's all a big joke. He figures he'll be there, perhaps he even masquerades as the Grim to help the joke along. But Lupin has other plans, and he makes sure Sirius is elsewhere that night. If Lupin didn't manage to devour the body entire he could still have hidden it in the forest, where other werewolves are known to reside. Well, I don't think I am talked out of it...that extra flamingo Naama found didn't help. But I am getting used to the idea. Evil!Lupin *is* more fun than passive-aggressive!Lupin. Twisted!Pippin wondering why we haven't heard from Cindy on this. From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Wed Jun 5 18:46:31 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 18:46:31 -0000 Subject: Lupin is an honest, nasty, DISLOYAL person (who is ev... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39425 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > In a message dated 05/06/02 02:52:26 GMT Daylight Time, editor at t... > writes: > > > > LOON on the deck! > Pippin: > > Sirius chases off after Pettigrew and then, mysteriously, > > hundreds of Dementors appear and attack Sirius, Hermione, > > Harry and Ron. > > > > Think about it. There've been people wandering around the > > grounds all night. Snape, Fudge, MacNair, Dumbledore, Hagrid, > > Tt!Harry and Tt!Hermione . The Dementors don't bother any of > > them. Then all of a sudden there are hundreds. Why? Because > > werewolf!Lupin set the Dementors on our heroes. (shiver!) Can > > the Dementors tell when they're dealing with a human mind in a > > canid body? They can't. > > This has alway puzzled me, too. > They are blind. > Sirius is apparently, when they start to approach, still in canine form > (Harry hears him howling by the lake). He didn't have long to transform and > realise that they were approaching, so I don't think they waited until he > transformed to start moving. > So why do they focus on *him*. > And *why* does he choose that moment to change back into human form. > And *why* for goodness sake, doesn't he just transform back. (OK, I know that > would take a lot of effort, but he was pretty debilitated when he did it in > Azkaban, and this is a crisis, for goodness sake!) --------- I've meditated on that question a bit myself. The way I've explained it is that when Sirius was at Azkaban, he was just another prisoner among many. Now he is the object of a massive man-hunt. The Dementors are starving thanks to Dumbledore, and they are tuned into Sirius' vibes. When one senses his presense, they all know about it and converge. With so many of them honing in on him, thirsty for his soul, it snaps him out of his dog-shape. ========== > > And another LOON point. > Why does Lupin say that no-one knows what's under the Dementors' hoods except > the victims? > Has no-one witnessed the Dementor's Kiss? (Ans: Yes, McGonnagall, Snape and > Fudge, for three. Were they the first?) --------- Simple, Lupin doesn't know. He can't possibly know everything about every dark creature or the entire history of dealing with them. He like would have to study up on the fine points of the creatures he is lecturing on that week. The people who has seen it happen probably do not like talking about it, would you? ========= > > And another: > > Why do Snape, Lupin and Harry at different points ever mention Sirius being > sent back to Azkaban, when they all know that he'll receive a Dementor's Kiss > before getting there? ----------- I have always thought that the dementors have permission to do it if they catch him. If the MoM catches him, they can easily revoke the sentence. =========== > > Eloise. > Off to start her day, now she's got all that off her chest. > Marcus From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Wed Jun 5 19:04:24 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 19:04:24 -0000 Subject: Lupin is an honest, nasty, DISLOYAL person (who is ev... In-Reply-To: <9e.275870ef.2a2f92dc@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39426 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > Sparklin Red: ------ Massive snip ------- > Eloise > Wondering how Snape *could* have immediately thought that Sirius had > Confunded the trio, when he was the only person in the scenario without a > wand. Simple. He is rearranging remembered facts to fit his theory, just like we all do. Marcus From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Wed Jun 5 19:05:54 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 19:05:54 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Charmed School Supplies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39427 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "uncmark" wrote: > > First, a bookbag with expanded space and probably a levitation charm > to compensate for extra weight. Somebody suggested the caldrons are used for this while shopping in Diagon Alley. They throw stuff into their caldrons when they buy it. Something in Wizard Space probably is not subject to local gravity. > Second, I've noticed a lack of good research tools in the library. > Remember how hard in was to find Nicholas Flamel in Book 1? What > kinds of reserach aides would Hermione make? Possibly a flying bookmark that would go th a relevant book and page when she banished it? > I'm wondering if she could in the long run make a wizard equivalent > of a computer to ease access to the VAST library at Hogwarts. In the > Short run she might get Dumbledore-Dispensation to charm a mundane > computer to work at Hogwarts. A more cooperative version of the Sphinx, perhaps? Or a specialized version of house elf? A "mundane" computer probably wouldn't work at Hogwarts, no matter what kind of charm is used. My own guess is that magic works on quantum mechanics, which would fry any solid-state electronics. A vacum tube computer might work, but it would take up the whole castle. > Or personally she could charm a magic mirror ala penseive to catalog > her ever-growing magical library. Magic books might well self-open to relevant passages. > As you can tell, Hermione's my favorite. I'd like to see her and Ron > (and maybe Ginny) challenged in OOP. The sorting hat judged them all > brave enough for Griffindor. I'd like to see them triumph. I still think Ginny is Parsiltongue, due to the TR diary. Tex From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Wed Jun 5 19:08:41 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 19:08:41 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Foreshadowing. (was Re: Dumbledore does not HAVE to die.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39428 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "barefootpuppets" wrote: > > > Marcus (who isn't saying that Dumbledore won't die, just that he > > doesn't have to.) > > Well, "have to" is pretty strong. Nothing "has to" happen unless JKR > makes it so. But you must admit that there was a lot of > foreshadowing of Dumbledore looking older than ever in GoF. And > Dumbledore spoke of death in Book 1 as the "next adventure." > > But I would argue that Dumbledore does need to go. Just like Obi Wan > had to go. It's the only way for Harry to meet his *destiny* -- > whatever the heck that is! > > Maybe not die, but at least be unavailable. (re: Gandalf) > > I believe that the foreshadowing in GoF is indicative of Dumbledore's > death. (I should look up all the instances, it's more than just one!) > > Heidi R. I do admit that there is a great deal of foreshadowing about Dumbledore's demise. But let's face it. Rowling is red herring master. You also have Harry's growing maturity and the awareness of vunerabilies in his heroes that comes with it. Marcus From fakeplastikcheese at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jun 5 14:10:22 2002 From: fakeplastikcheese at yahoo.co.uk (fakeplastikcheese) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 14:10:22 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Protecting the Stone In-Reply-To: <20020605124303.98410.qmail@web21106.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39429 Ronald Rae Yu wrote: > Isn't the Mirror of Erised the protection that > Dumbledore provided for the Stone? Then, in the first > place, what was it doing in the room that Harry > discovered it in? Does it mean that the Stone was not > _initially_ provided protection for by Dumbledore? I > know this may not imply anything but I just like to > point this out. I always wondered that! What was the point of Fluffy (and by implication, all the other tasks) if the stone was in a random room? "fakeplastikcheese" From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Wed Jun 5 19:16:16 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 19:16:16 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore does not HAVE to die - alternatives please In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39430 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Felicia Rickmann" > > > The real puzzle would be how to go about > > * life the universe and Potterverse * if she did NOT kill Dumbledore > off. > > > > I've been thinking about that myself the last couple of days. One > possibility would be Dumbledore losing his magical powers -- either as > a result of some preliminary confrontation with Voldemort, or > voluntarily giving them up for some reason (transferring them to > Harry, perhaps?) That would remove him from his role as > super-powerful protector without killing him off. > > Marina > rusalka at i... Or Dumbledore loses his powers because of old-age and infirmity, but keeps his wisdom. Or he is confined to a bed. Marcus From dicentra at xmission.com Wed Jun 5 19:21:15 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 19:21:15 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Protecting the Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39431 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "fakeplastikcheese" wrote: > Ronald Rae Yu wrote: > > > Isn't the Mirror of Erised the protection that > > Dumbledore provided for the Stone? Then, in the first > > place, what was it doing in the room that Harry > > discovered it in? Does it mean that the Stone was not > > _initially_ provided protection for by Dumbledore? I > > know this may not imply anything but I just like to > > point this out. > > I always wondered that! What was the point of Fluffy (and by > implication, all the other tasks) if the stone was in a random room? > It was all for Harry's sake. Read post #33289 for a complete explanation written by a *brilliant* list member. :D --Dicentra, who has no shame at all From Ali at zymurgy.org Wed Jun 5 19:23:07 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 19:23:07 -0000 Subject: Hermione's age - why it matters was Canon disagreement; author intent In-Reply-To: <474410FA.5F7B405C.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39432 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., dfrankiswork at n... wrote: <> I couldn't find the last list discussion on this, and forgive the repetition. To me, it matters quite simply because I, and I suspect many other readers like to be RIGHT. Many things in the Potterverse are still open to interpretation, and will be right until the end of the series, but the age of one of Harry's best friends despite being trivial should just be pure fact, and unchallengeable. I was so adamant that I was right about my interpretation, that I dared to challenge "Steve of the Lexicon" offlist - only to presented with the only piece of canon on the matter. From memory this was Dumbledore calling Harry and Hermione "13 Year old wizards" at the end of POA - implying that Hermione must have her birthday after Harry. Of course, being stubborn I think that JKR simply over- generalised here, and Hermione MUST be older than Harry. (I won't repeat all the arguments here, and I fully understand why people disagree with me. Isn't the divide for the Hermione age-dispute also along Nationality- boundaries. We Brits who *know* that JKR is basing Hogwarts on our system like to press home the advantage when we can. I can't even count the number of times I have read Brits complain when the words "Hogwarts" and "graduation" come together - I personally don't like it either, for what that's worth. And yet, Hogwarts is only based on the English* system but it isn't part of it, and just as JKR so freely interprets other ideas, she could quite easily have a graduation at the end. Afterall, there is no Wizard University which there should be if JKR was rigidly following the English system. Ali (who will have to eat Humble Pie *IF* JKR does categorically state that Hermione is younger than Harry - though I do acknowledge that the gifted Hermione is well able to stand her ground against her peers however old she is ). *I'm not confusing English and British here, but the Scottish education system is different to the English/Welsh one, and JKR is following the English/Welsh one. From drumforever at earthlink.net Wed Jun 5 19:29:15 2002 From: drumforever at earthlink.net (Betty Landers) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 15:29:15 -0400 Subject: TBAY: Lily & Petunia's Parents Message-ID: <3CFE668B.B397924B@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39433 Brandon paddles out into Theory Bay on a driftwood log he found on the shore to introduce his first theory. *Hi, brandon! I'm Betty, and I've never been out in this bay before; I don't speculate much; I just wait for the mistress of the Potterverse. anyway... Brandon again: I was watching the movie when an interesting thought crossed my mind. What if the reason that Mr. & Mrs. Evans were so proud of Lily's magical ability is because their lack of magic wasn't from being Muggles but because they're Squibs and therefore Lily was the closest they would ever get to doing magic themselves. *Maybe, but then that would require Hagrid being ignorant of one of his presumed best friends' magical history. SS Ch. 4. "Now, yer mum an' dad were as good a witch an' wizardas I ever knew. "... "...But it's that sad--knew yer mum an' dad, 'n nicer people yeh couldn't find-- ..." So we've at least established that Hagrid and the Potters must have been friends. Ch. 5. "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 what everyone in the aleaky Cauldron was like when they saw yeh. Anyway, what does he know about it, some o' 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!" Thsu seems to say to me that Lily came from a line of Muggles. Just my two knuts. Betty P.S. Could I get an acronym for this theory? --------------------------- Brandon -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GU d- s+:-- a-- C++>$ U? L(-) E? W++ N? o? K? w+ !O M-- V? PS(+) PE Y PGP- t++ 5++ X- R tv++ b+++ DI+++ D+ G e(*) h! !r !z+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 4/19/02 ________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 Ali at zymurgy.org Wed Jun 5 19:50:01 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 19:50:01 -0000 Subject: Replies to Lupin is an honest, nasty disloyal... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39434 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > Let's see. A few more flamingos have flapped in, only to be > greeted by an impressive array of sharp sticks. But are they > sharp enough? > > Maybe Sirius told James that Lupin had turned against them, > and that's why there were no pictures of Lupin at the wedding. I can't actually remember Lupin not being in the photos, but if he isn't aren't there other possibilities: 1) Maybe he was actually taking the photos - afterall, James' other best friends wouldn't have been able to provide Hagrid with any photos, and as yet we know nothing of any friends of Lily or any other friends of James. 2) maybe the wedding happened at Full Moon so Lupin couldn't go (granted this is a bit weak as the Potters would probably have tried to make sure that one of their best friends could attend) Pippin again: > > Yep, Lupin is extremely reluctant to touch Harry, not surprising > > since the last Voldemort employee who tried it got fried. Better > > wait till Harry is unconscious and try it then. PoA Ch. 12 > > Naama: > >>>Yeah, but come on,that was because Voldemort was > inhabiting his body. And Voldemort knows this. No, the protection is only against Voldemort, and he knows it. If Lupin is doing Voldemort's bidding then he would know this as well."<<< > > Nope. Everybody knows that Voldemort doesn't understand this > mother love stuff very well. That's what the famous gleam is all > about. If I were Lupin it would behoove me to be cautious, and > touch Harry for the first time while he was unconscious. That > way, if my finger blistered , I could say I burnt it on the kettle. > > But there could be other interpretations. Maybe Lupin was > having a Gollum moment, and felt a brief stab of pity for the victim who looks so much like his childhood friend. Err, I thought that the blistering was caused by touching Harry's bare skin. Unless Harry had decided to take off his clothes, wouldn't Lupin have been ok if he just put his hand on a robe covered shoulder? Equally, Lupin revives Harry after one of his dementor- induced fainting spells: "Lupin was tapping Harry hard on the face" p.178 UK hardback edition. I know that Lupin could have been tapping Harry with his wand or even his shoe but isn't it more likely that he was using his bare hands? Ali who really doesn't want her beloved Remus to be evil, and will try to refute the evidence whenever she can From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Wed Jun 5 21:09:01 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 21:09:01 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's dispensability In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39435 Cindy wrote: > I mean, isn't it pretty much a given that > *someone* will betray Dumbledore? Dumbledore certainly has to get > out of the way so that Harry can save the wizarding world, right? > > That means that *someone* has to betray Dumbledore, and that someone > must have Dumbledore's trust (so that they can get the drop on him) > and must be capable of killing him. I don't see Dumbledore losing a > duel with Voldemort or being ambushed. Dumbledore is too smart and > powerful for that. The only person who can bring down Dumbledore is > someone who has his trust and uses that trust to stab him in the > back. > I think this chain of reasoning raises a number of issues. We display a great deal of collective ingenuity to develop plot twists over Avery, Lupin, Florence, etc, yet when it comes to the final denouement, everything is assumed to run on cliched tramlines. Why does Dumbledore have to be out of the way? And if he is, why does he have to be killed in a duel or (perish the thought) an ambush? Books 1, 2 and 4 end in a duel (of sorts) between Harry and Voldemort in some guise. Only in Book 4 is it anything like a conventional duel. Book 3 shows that they don't have to end that way. It all depends on what JKR's concept of how the conflict between good and evil will be resolved, and the chief good guy killing the chief bad guy in single combat is only one end among many. If she wanted to show that teamwork is essential to good winning (certainly a theme that can be argued, given the roles of Hagrid and Lupin) then you might have Dumbledore's age plus Harry's youth as part of the formula. And Voldemort might self-destruct rather than be killed by any of the good characters - all it takes for one of his over-complicated schemes to backfire because of something he doesn't understand about Harry. A few weeeks ago Heidi mentioned Pride and Prejudice: one of the things I really like about that book is the way the very natural actions of the nearest thing to a Voldemort figure - Lady Catherine de Bourgh eventually catalyse the good outcome in a way that seems inevitable in hindsight. And in The Amber Spyglass I think it's neat the way The Authority is disposed of almost be accident, in passing. In each case the messages are different. What ending would endorse the messages we believe JKR is conveying through the HP series? I realise these ideas aren't compatible but I can't put together long convincing scenarios: I'm just trying to get those of you who can to think outside the box. David From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jun 5 21:12:31 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 21:12:31 -0000 Subject: Replies to Lupin is an honest, nasty disloyal... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39436 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > > Let's see. A few more flamingos have flapped in, only to be > > greeted by an impressive array of sharp sticks. But are they > > sharp enough? > > > > Maybe Sirius told James that Lupin had turned against them, > > and that's why there were no pictures of Lupin at the wedding. > > I can't actually remember Lupin not being in the photos, but if he isn't aren't there other possibilities: Harry goes through his photo album hunting for pictures of Sirius and this group has always thought it Flint-y that Harry never seems to notice pictures of Lupin in there. It could be that Lupin was taking the photos, as you say, but come on -- aren't there any pictures of you with your friends in *your* photo album? Also, if Hagrid was in contact with Lupin at the end of PS/SS, why wasn't Lupin asked to take the Dark Arts job? The thing that works best about evil!Lupin is that it gets rid of all these Flinty things we've been worrying over for years now. They weren't Flints at all, they were clues! or hints (see below) Ali again: > 2) maybe the wedding happened at Full Moon so Lupin couldn't go (granted this is a bit weak as the Potters would probably have tried to make sure that one of their best friends could attend)<<<< Unless he *wasn't* their friend any more. > > Pippin again: > > > > Yep, Lupin is extremely reluctant to touch Harry, not surprising since the last Voldemort employee who tried it got fried. Better wait till Harry is unconscious and try it then. PoA Ch. 12 > > > > Naama: > > >>>Yeah, but come on,that was because Voldemort was > > inhabiting his body. And Voldemort knows this. No, the protection is only against Voldemort, and he knows it. If Lupin is doing Voldemort's bidding then he would know this as well."<<< > > > > Nope. Everybody knows that Voldemort doesn't understand this mother love stuff very well. That's what the famous gleam is all about. If I were Lupin it would behoove me to be cautious, and touch Harry for the first time while he was unconscious. That way, if my finger blistered , I could say I burnt it on the kettle. > > > > But there could be other interpretations. Maybe Lupin was > > having a Gollum moment, and felt a brief stab of pity for the > victim who looks so much like his childhood friend. > > Err, I thought that the blistering was caused by touching Harry's > bare skin. Unless Harry had decided to take off his clothes, wouldn't Lupin have been ok if he just put his hand on a robe covered shoulder? Equally, Lupin revives Harry after one of his dementor- induced fainting spells: "Lupin was tapping Harry hard on the face" > p.178 UK hardback edition. I know that Lupin could have been tapping Harry with his wand or even his shoe but isn't it more likely that he was using his bare hands?<<< I don't think I'm being clear about this. Let me try again. Stipulated: mother love causes Harry's bare skin to burn Voldemort and/or Voldemort-occupied beings. Stipulated: Voldemort believes this *at the time of the re-birthing*. Stipulated: Lupin can touch Harry without harm. Stipulated: Quirrell could touch Harry before Voldemort possessed him Right. Those are the facts. My theory goes like this. Starred events are canon. 1)Quirrell shakes hands with Harry* 2) Voldemort possesses Quirrell. * He may not know about the handshake, since he wasn't with Quirrell at the time.* 3) Quirrell gets fried* 4) Voldemort flees* 5) Dumbledore tells Harry why Quirrell couldn't touch him. * 6) Voldemort arrives in Albania.* 7) Voldemort consults with Dark Arts expert RJ Lupin. They speculate, arriving at the Mother Love theory. Even if Voldemort tells Lupin about the handshake with Quirrell, which he may not even be aware of, it's still just a theory. And it's obviously magic that isn't well understood. 8) Lupin is reluctant to touch Harry. That's a clue--something Harry could use to solve the puzzle--if my theory is right. If I'm wrong, it's a red herring (that's what I thought the first time I read the book.) It could also be a hint--a coincidence that leads the reader in the right direction, sort of the opposite of a red herring. Examples are all Ron's off-the-wall guesses that turn out to be correct. Lupin wouldn't have been harmed if he'd touched Harry's robed shoulder, even if he is Evil. But Lupin hasn't got anyway to know that except what he and Voldie have worked out, and for all Lupin knows, they could be wrong. 9) Lupin touches Harry for the first time *as an experiment*, when Harry is unconscious, having fainted. If Harry reacts to any servant of LV, or reacts to werewolves, Lupin will get a burnt finger, but Harry won't know what caused it. Kay? Pippin wondering if Voldemort promised Lupin he'd use the Stone plus his knowledge of dangerous transformations to cure L of Lycanthropy From pollux46 at hotmail.com Wed Jun 5 21:46:39 2002 From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 21:46:39 -0000 Subject: TBAY: MACHINGARMCHAIR Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39437 And Cindy thought * she* was taking the Egg thing too far! The sun is shining down on Theory Bay, small ripples are lapping playfully at the sides of the MACHINGARMCHAIR paddleboat and a salty smell infuses the air. The weather is very hot. Charis eyes the blue? green water wistfully. Ah, to ride free with the waves! But no. She can't escape into the cool depths. She has to sit this out. Debbie is still expounding on her opinions regarding Neville's Spell?Shocked or otherwise state, what he witnessed and what he might remember and of course what that blasted Egg invoked in him. Charis sighs. This is embarassing, is what this is. She opens her mouth trying to interrupt Debbie, but Debbie isn't listening. She lifts her hand timidly into the air and that fails too. Finally Charis shuffles as inconspicuously as possible up to Debbie, grabs the edge of Debbie's robes and gives a light tug. Debbie finally looks down. "Oh, Charis! Did you want something?" Charis glances nervously towards the other side of the paddleboat where Cindy and Eileen are peering at them curiously. "Err, somewhere private if possible Debbie?" Debbie and Charis clamber clumsily out of the paddleboat out onto dry land. Debbie looks expectantly at Charis. She doesn't really like being interrupted mid?speech. "Well? What do you want?" Charis is looking sheepish. "Err, the thing is Debbie. . ." "Yeeeeees?" says Debbie testily. "The thing is, I, err, don't . . . well, in fact, what with one thing and another and, err, as things stand an'all, err,. . . you're probably right. About Neville. And the PTSD. And all those those other things." Debbie looks taken aback. She wasn't really expecting this. "You see," Charis continues more nervously still, "I can't really argue with you, because, because. . . well, to say the truth, because I haven't really looked into matters that thouroughly" (yes, that was definitely the best way to put it she thinks) She continues hurridly: "You see I was't even present at the Symposium, and I've never really looked into Memory Charms or Potions all that much and" "and I don't know all that much about PTSD" Debbie stares. Why, this is unbelievable. This is precious! Oh, Charis has got herself into a fix! Debbie lifts her hand to her mouth and begins to giggle. Charis is visably affronted. Huh! What does Debbie mean by * that*! Charis scowls. "Oooh," taunts Debbie, "you don't even know what you're talking about! Hee, hee, hee!" Charis's face sets. Her eyes narrow. "Oh, that's your attidude, is it? I didn't expect this from you. Well, it's not true," she bellows, "Not True At All! All I meant was that I'm, err, not an expert, yeah, that's all. . ." But Debbie's still giggling gleefully. "Oh, I'll show you! Gimme that!" She yanks Debbie's notes out of her hands and starts perusing them muttering angrily ". . .don't know what I'm talking about, I'll show her don't know what I'm talking about. . ." Suddenly her head flies up a triumphant look written all over it: "Ha! What about this, huh? * This* can't be right: >If you look at Neville's reaction to the Dementors, >you'll notice that he was pale and has a higher voice than usual. >But he >wasn't shaking (Ron's comment seems to indicate that only Ginny >shook). And >he wasn't babbling nonsense like he did after Crouch's >demonstration. No, he >gave a cogent explanation of his reaction to the Dementor. I have to >conclude that the Dementor didn't give him that Dolby Digital version at all. > It took Crouch to do that for him. And why not? Because he didn't get a >Memory Potion. He got a Memory Charm. And the Dementor may have made a >little headway in dislodging those memories from their airtight compartment >in Neville's brain. But it didn't make enough headway, did it? Because >Neville wasn't unconscious. He wasn't even shaking. > Look, I'm not so sure about this bit at all. The Dementors didn't manage to dislodge Neville's Memory Charm, but Crouch with a couple of spiders did? But I thought that Dementors were "amongst the foulist creatures that roam this earth." I thought that they drain every one near them of hope, peace and happiness, that they make you relive all your worst memories again and again pitilessly, till you're souless and evil and, you know, all that jazz. And you're telling me that one wizard with a wand can manage to drag up to the conscious mind what a Dementor couldn't? All the Dementor gets is a bit of feeble squeaking? I'm not convinced. Ah, says Debbie smugly, but Crouch/Moody isn't all on his own here: >But between the >Dementor and Crouch/Moody's demonstration and the sound of the egg, >Neville's >subconscious magic may be beginning to pick away at the shield >covering his >memories." > Charis's mouth twiches. Hmmm, subconcious magic, huh? Boy, there seems to be an epidemic of that around teenage boys lately. . . Dimming lights, drudging up memories . . . Really interesting what goes on in yound wizarding ids, I say. Now, I could possibly buy this but: urr, wouldn't it be * painful*? You know, not dealing? with?your?issues?from?the-- past painful, but writhing?on?the?floor--- screaming?your?mouth-- off painful? Wouldn't it be a bit masochistic of Neville, nevermind Neville's subconcious, to attempt it? So, I'm not sure about this one. No, the way I see it the only way out is if you assume that Neville faces what the Dementor forced him to relive on a daily basis (due to his Memory Potion) and that therefore he is more adept than Harry at handling the ugly memory attack on the train. Otherwise, if you assume that Neville simply doesn't have any bad memories to access because of his Memory Charm, then you're pretty much condemming Neville to horrific mind?breaking torture sometime in the future books in order to break the Charm?`cause if a Dementor couldn't do it then that's about the only thing that can. (certainly a twitching spider couldn't). And I Don't Like That Prospect. But what about that spider, huh? Why does Neville react so badly to it? Debbie wrote: "And if Neville doesn't have a visual image of his parents' torture until >Crouch shows him, how can he be suffering the effects of a Memory Potion? >Wasn't the supposed purpose of the potion to enable Neville to tell what >happened and who did it? Aside from the biggest problem, that I can't >believe Neville was old enough to provide meaningful information (unless he >was fingering someone he already knew, like Evil!Gran or Evil!Uncle Algie or >an Evil! friend of Frank's), there's no evidence that he had any visual >memory, or at least anything he could access before Crouch came along. I >think the evidence shows that the only visual he has is the one Crouch >provides for him, and that he still doesn't hear his parents screaming. > > Hmmm, well, like I said, I'm, err, no expert. (that * is* what I said!). Do Memory Potions really preclude the possibility that Neville really * didn't * have a visual image of his parents torture? Maybe whoever gave him the potion miscalculated. Maybe they thought Neville knew who did it?or that he would know was he helped along with a bit of memory enhancing?but Neville really didn't. So they gave the poor kid the Potion and all in vain. They finally caught the Four of course because of Moody's superb Auror work or (which is my prefered version) because Avery succombed to the hounding of his guilty conscience and squealed on the rest (which is how he avoided Azkaban you see) . But poor Neville was left with ear?splitting, err, * sounds* renting his head apart eversince nevertheless. So Neville prior to the spider incident indeed didn't have any visual image of Cruciatus victums twiching hopelessly. That's why it's such a shock for him, see? Debbie's tapping her foot impatiently. But all this time Charis is ignoring the central issue here. "What about the Egg?" she asks. "What about Neville's supposed PTSD? I really took you to task about that and you think you can distract me like that , just picking insignificant holes elsewhere in my theory? Huh." Charis remains calm and collected. (outwardly at least) Yes. About that Egg. Charis rolls up her shirt sleaves. Debbie doesn't buy my PTSD argument: >"No, I don't think so. A sound may >trigger the onset of PTSD symptoms - one that is associated with the event. >But the triggering event brings back the memory of the event itself. And the >context of the egg scene does not, IMO, support that conclusion. > > Hmm, I don't know about that. I believe (after extensive study in this field ;^) that PTSD affects different people in different ways. I've read stories of men coming home on the train from the FWW and seeing the logs on the railway as dead corpses. Others started dancing jigs in the middle of the battlefield. I read one very disturbing account of a soldier that took a hand grenade in each hand, told his comrades he'd blow them up if they came near him and ran towards the enemy rifle fire to throw the granades at them. He was killed. Is it really necessary that the memory of the event itself is relived? But after all, how can we know what Neville is seeing or hearing at that moment? The Egg's wails may have brought back the traumatic experiences in full blast. Maybe Neville really * isn't * hearing wails here at all. Maybe they're drowned out by the sound of the screams in his head. We're not privy to his thoughts so we really don't know. > > >"Everyone hears the egg's screeching. Nobody's ever heard anything like it >before, so they begin guessing. Seamus says that it "sounded like a >banshee." Neville next offers, "It was someone being tortured!" Like >Seamus, he's just trying to guess what the sound of the egg was. > Well, Seamus certainlly is simply making a suggestion here. But is Neville? I don't think he's just trying to be helpful. After all what Neville says is "it * was* someone being tortured" not "it sounded like". Which to me suggests that torture * is* really what Neville is hearing here. Not something that's just similar like Seamus is. At this point Cindy, who's been eyeing those two suspiciously from the paddleboat a little of coast leans over the side and calls out "The wailing! Don't forget the wailing!" >The first option is that Neville reacts the way he does because of >>those dreaded visits to his parents at St. Mungos. What do his >>parents likely *do* during those visits? Well, that depends on >>whether you want a Bang or not. >> >>If you want a Bang (as I surely do), then they *wail*, that's what >>they do! >> >>Debbie nods. "See? Even Cindy doesn't *really* buy that Memory Potion >thing! It was just her bit of fun!" > > Charis smiles. Well, fun is the whole point here, isn't it really? But lets pretend we're dead serious, ok? Well, what if Neville never actually heard any screaming? Oh, don't get me wrong here. The Longbottoms did scream all right. A lot. Just that Neville never heard. Right, lets set the scene. Thirteen years ago Mrs Lestrange and Co show up on the Longbottoms front doorstep. Or on the bank of a a river of molten lava where the family are enjoying a relaxful picnic while fiery dragons flying overhead and a Tyranosaurus Rex ravages the country side. Whichever you prefer. The DEs set on Mr Longbottom first, who was downstairs all alone grabbing a midnight snack from the fridge or off to practice his stunning abilities on the dragons. Whichever you prefer. The DEs have a lot of fun. Well, all except Mrs Lestrange of course. She's getting worried. Frank's not blabbing. This is not working. She must do something. Mrs Lestrange calls one of her accomplices over: "Hey, you! Yeah, you! Nameless boy! Come over `ere. NOW!" Whatsisname reluctantly lowers his wand and waddles over. "Now, you look here boy. This isn't no time for larks. Yes, I know you're having a good time but we've got business to do. Eh! Whasat? Look, when I talk you listen, buster! Now, go upstairs and get the wife and child. PROTO! We?don't?know?who hurries off dithering nervously. He finds Mrs Longbottom and baby Neville and hauls them over. Now, at this point what do you think Mrs Longbottom is doing? She's not screaming, no, nobody's been at her with Crucio yet. She's wailing is what she's doing, is what! She's waailing and pleading and wailing some more because she doesn't want to be tortured and she certainly doesn't want her baby to be tortured and she's got her husband before her tortured but she didn't want that either. And so, she's wailing. And, you see, that's all baby Neville hears. Clutched close to his mother's bosom his father's shrieks of pain are all drowned by his mother's terrified wails. And when Mrs Longbottom is wrenched from her child and subjected to the cruciatus herself, Neville still doesn't hear screams because this time he's too busy wailing himself. So, see? That solves the matter! Of course people don't wail when in intense pain. That's not the way it works. We know that. But does Neville? No! He thinks people under the Cruciatus Curse wail because that's all he heard during his parents torture." * * * All this does raise another matter. I've got a question. Why don't all the wizards Voldemort and the DEs went after just * Disapparate*? Is this (no!) a FLINT? I mean * why*? Somebody comes at you with a wand, you see the word Imperio, or Crucio or Avada Kedavra or whatever forming on their lips and you just * sit there*! Even though you're a wizard? Even though you can excape like, poof!, that? Now granted not all wizards can Apparate. Fine I accept that. But hey, don't tell me Frank Longbottom the famous Auror couldn't! Not James the Animagus surely! So, what's up? * * * Charis stops to thinks a bit. Huh. So Neville doesn't see * or* hear his parents torture. Hmm, somewhere along the way Charis seems to have dropped her Bang. But she's not going to say anything about that out loud. Debbie almost looks like she might swallow this theory. Hmm, anyway, all is well really. Neville is still horribly * scarred*. You know, psycologically. It's still pretty awful for him. So that's OK. Ooh, in fact it's better than that! Wow, listen here Debbie: look, all this is really Big Bang because what is incessantly re--played in Neville's mind is not so much his parents torture, no. It's Neville's own horror and fear and overwhelming * misery* because of their torture. Neville doesn't just keep on getting blasts or a mere event, however traumatic that may be. Neville is constantly at the grip of all the awful emotions that flooded him during that event! That's bigger (isn't it?) Debbie has now calmed down from her giggling fit considerably. In fact she looks quite sober and solemn. She's looking thoughtfully at the horison waaaay out over the waters of the Bay. Suddenly she turns to Charis and blurts out: "I'll tell you a secret, Charis. I believe in Memory Potions, too (though I'm still undecided on whether their effect is to enhance or suppress). I believe in the Jobberknoll. They *are* canon. I even believe Frank Longbottom could have had one at home and that Snape could have shown up and killed it." Charis shifts her feet uneasily. "You know what, Debbie. I believe in all that too. It really * is * Canon. But sometimes I just kinda worry, you know. That all these theories might just be a tad too far? fetched. They're all brilliant (naturally) but maybe, well, maybe Neville doesn't really have a Memory * anything*. Maybe all he has is bad memories and the knowledge of the ugly things that happened in his past" Debbie looks shocked. "Oh, don't worry. It just a mood. It doesn't last long. And, say Debbie? Don't mention that to Eloise will you? She'll gloat and say * I'm* the one who's boring. Huh. As if!" The sun sets on the Bay as Charis and Debbie return to the paddleboat. As thay clamber on board Debbie suggests amicably: "How about the Jobberknoll with Wailing Insane Parents Variant? With Memory Charm? Or the Wailing Insane Parents with Memory Potion and Memory Charm? No? Well then, perhaps I can just pull up on my own Memory Charm paddleboat, anchor it to yours, and share some refreshments while we spin out new Jobberknoll theories together." "Sure!" says Charis reaching out for the box of sweeties that was lying around earlier. "Apparently I finished all the Canary Creams though. Ton?Tongue Toffee?" Charis Julia. From katgirl at lava.net Thu Jun 6 00:23:11 2002 From: katgirl at lava.net (booklovinggirl) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 00:23:11 -0000 Subject: Snape is an honest nasty DISLOYAL person (who will betray Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39438 Cindy: > But I don't see why people are so darn confident that Snape won't > turn against Dumbledore. I mean, isn't it pretty much a given that > *someone* will betray Dumbledore? I've been following this Dumbledore/death discussion for a while, and think it is time to throw in my two cents. No, it is not necessary that Dumbledore dies/is betrayed. It would certainly be interesting, and certainly the aftereffects would be...turbulent, but I don't think it's necessary. > Dumbledore certainly has to get > out of the way so that Harry can save the wizarding world, right? Perhaps, yes. But dying isn't the only way to "get out of the way". It's quick, easy, and dramatic, but there are other ways-Dumbledore is injured right before the Final Battle? Or perhaps even drawn away from Hogwarts by way of a betrayal and not able to get back to Hogwarts in time? Hmmm. I don't think either of those ideas are quite as neat and well- planned as death. So let's go back to that. When would Dumbledore's death be? Dumbledore's main purpose in life (as far as he's concerned) is to teach Harry. I suspect that even during and after his death he'll be teaching Harry, even after the Final Battle he'll be teaching Harry. Teaching all of them. (You can pick for yourself who "they" are. The Order? Everyone in Harry's year? As I said, you decide.) Cindy: > That means that *someone* has to betray Dumbledore, and that someone > must have Dumbledore's trust (so that they can get the drop on him) > and must be capable of killing him. Must they? I'm sure a large group of DE's, possibly with Voldemort's help could do the trick. > I don't see Dumbledore losing a > duel with Voldemort or being ambushed. I can't really see him winning, either. > Dumbledore is too smart and > powerful for that. The only person who can bring down Dumbledore is > someone who has his trust and uses that trust to stab him in the > back. > > So who does Dumbledore trust enough to let his guard down? It's a > fairly short list, I think: > > 1. Snape. Boy, that would be a shocker! The ultimate betrayal! > Someone to whom Dumbledore gave a second chance, someone "cunning" > enough to be in Slytherin, someone who knows a lot of dark curses, > someone who knows how DEs operate. I think Snape is the best bet > for a betrayal. And a Big one, too! But you see, the reason why this can't work is that Harry, IMHO, doesn't fully trust Snape. Sure, Dumbledore does, but if Snape betrays Dumbledore, it won't really be that big. A few people, such as Slytherins with the potential to go good on us, or people in the Order of the Phoenix, and maybe some of the teachers will say to themselves, "And to think I liked that traitor!" but a slightly larger number would say "I never really trusted him in the first place." A very small minority will go off into the corner and brood. The more sadistical ones might fantasize of Voldemort AKing Snape. But you see my point, don't you? It's not big enough. If Snape gets more developed in OoP, and gains some of Harry's trust, I'll be willing to say that Snape might betray Dumbledore. But as of now, I don't think JKR will write it in. It'll be a bit too limp. Cindy: > 2. Real Moody. Maybe, as he surely has Dumbledore's trust and is > very powerful. This one has real possibilities, if we can get > around the problem that Real Moody has to be Good because the whole > plot in GoF depends on it. *shrug* Who knows? I personally think Real Moody won't betray Dumbledore, but we haven't really met him yet, have we? > 3. McGonagall. Uh, no. She couldn't even ward off Crouch Jr.'s > dementor. Mmm, yes. And I can't see her betraying Dumbledore either.... > 4. Lucius. Interesting, but he has received so little development > that this one is hard to swallow. Dumbledore, trust Lucius? No. Maybe in the far distant future, but I don't think he trusts Lucius now. > > 5. Hagrid. I don't know how JKR would sell this one. JKR has > never had Hagrid even *hint* that he might suddenly become disloyal > to Dumbledore. Ewww. Hagrid, sell out to Voldemort? Not happening. No. > 6. Lupin/Sirius. No. No, no, no. Well, from the recent Remus Is Ever So Evil theory, not everyone believes this. But if either of them are going to go over to Voldemort. Lily and James's best friends, go over to LV? No. Peter might have done it, but Peter is a power thirsty scuttling little rat. Unlike Remus and Sirius. > 7. Harry/Ron/Hermione/Neville/Draco. They just aren't strong > enough to pull this off, and they won't be for a good long while. And why would any of them (save Draco) want to do it? > 8. Minor teachers (Trelawney, Flitwick, Sprout). Really, why > bother? I'm not sure you can call Trelawney a minor teacher. And you can imagine Evil!Trelawney, if you try hard enough. But unless she's unbelievably twisted, (Hmm...I just got a picture of Trelawney as Mrs. Lestrange. ::shudder:: That's taking it a little far.) she won't betray Dumbledore. -Katherine From angelsound2001 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 5 21:07:32 2002 From: angelsound2001 at yahoo.com (angelsound2001 at yahoo.com) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 14:07:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The flying motorbike Message-ID: <20020605210732.43401.qmail@web10801.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39439 >> Sirius is an outlaw, he was flying that illegal bike, flounting it. <> We don't know for sure that he wasn't! I think the context of the comment was that Sirius has a proud and wild type of personality-- an "outlaw type," if you will. It's a rather romantic image. He could possibly have broken the law on occasion for kicks (he *was* a rule-breaking Marauder!), though certainly nothing really serious (no pun intended, really!) --Raven __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From grega126 at aol.com Wed Jun 5 22:09:44 2002 From: grega126 at aol.com (greg_a126) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 22:09:44 -0000 Subject: Maybe Hagrid is the LOYAL person(who just has some major [confidence?] problems) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39440 First, I have to say that I really like Hagrid. He seems to be a man who is fiercly loyal to his friends, especially Dumbledore. In the first book, when Harry, Ron & Hermione were all convinced that Snape was trying to curse Harry, Hagrid knew it couldn't be true b/c Dumbledore trusted him. So his loyalty extends to not only those that he trusts, but also to the people that he respects trust. If he is going to "get it" in the 5th book, I think this will probably be how he gets it. trusting someone he shouldn't. Aldrea wrote: > Get him drunk, and...well...it cerainly seems to loosen his tongue a > bit. But that only seems to prove with matters of...well, not of the > HIGHEST importance. When he told Quirrell about Fluffy's weakness in > the pub, he didn't seem to be thinking about the Stone at all. He > only informed him of a rather dangerous creature under his care. But > he never mentioned the Stone- he knew how important that was. But > still, this flaw looks as though it could come into play...though > with matters as they stand, perhaps Hagrid will indeed grow up and > seal his lips more tightly. > My question is why now? Why would Hagrid "grow up" now? This is not the first wizarding war that Hagrid will have lived through. We know that Hagrid took on his gamekeeping duties fifty years ago, which means that he lived through Voldemort's first reign of terror. (Coincidentally, I've always wondered if Hagrid knows Voldemort's real name as Tom Riddle & the person who got him kicked out of school, but that's neither here nor there.) So if he lived through Voldemort's first reign of terror & is now approaching 70 years of age (getting kicked out of school 50 years ago) both imply to me that he's done all the "growing up" that he's going to do. But why does everyone assume that Hagrid is untrustworthy? First, of all of the Enchanments protecting the stone, only Dumbledore's, the greatest wizard of out time provided Quirrel with a bigger problem than Hagrid's. Sprout, Snape, McGonagall& flitwick all provided enchantments that were so useless 3 first years got through them with only one of them getting a concussion. Hagrid's dog kept Quirrel out for most of the year, so that the trio had time to figure everything out. Second, Dumbledore trusted Hagrid to bring the Boy-Who-Lived to Hogwarts. Over the course of 24 hours Harry Potter went from being just a nother wizard child who happened to have powerful parents, to the most famous wizarding boy in the world & who does Dumbledore trust to bring Harry Potter to start his new life? Hagrid. You don't just go from one day being just the groundskeeper, to being trusted with the safety of the most important wizard in the world. We know little to nothing about what happened during the first war. All we know is the death of the few people that Hagrid mentioned the first time he met Harry in the PS, and nearly everyone assumes that the Order of the Pheonix is charged with protecting the wizarding world against Voldemort. Beyond that, we're pretty well clueless. It's quite possible that Hagrid did something to prove his loyalty to Dumbledore in the midsts of a wizarding war before Harry was even a twinkle in his parents eyes. Greg From cindysphynx at comcast.net Thu Jun 6 02:28:52 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 02:28:52 -0000 Subject: Apparate or Die Trying (WAS TBAY: MACHINGARMCHAIR) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39441 Charis Julia wondered: >Why don't > all the wizards Voldemort and the DEs went after just * >Disapparate*? Is this (no!) a FLINT? I mean * why*? Somebody comes >at you with a wand, you see the word Imperio, or Crucio or Avada >Kedavra or whatever forming on their lips and you just * sit >there*! Even though you're a wizard? > > Now granted not all wizards can Apparate. Fine I accept that. But > hey, don't tell me Frank Longbottom the famous Auror couldn't! Not > James the Animagus surely! So, what's up? Oh, Charis Julia. You really struck a nerve with me, sending me into a full-blown uncontrollable *rant* about this! This *is* bothersome, isn't it? JKR has not done a single thing to explain the many instances when wizards ought to apparate out of trouble but just don't. Sheez, all kinds of wizards just *stand* there all flummoxed, about to be blasted to *bits* when they should be popping right out of there? OK, so James and Lily don't apparate, er, because they can't do it with Baby Harry. Fine. Frank and Mrs. Longbottom have the same problem with Toddler Neville. Whatever. So why doesn't Bertha apparate away? How about Real Moody pops out of a tight spot before he is captured by Crouch Jr. and Wormtail? How about Crouch Jr. apparates out of the top box to freedom? Wormtail's chances of survival are probably better if he just apparates away when Sirius corners him instead of this elaborate self-mutilation scheme, right? That Wormtail *still* hasn't sorted out the ins and outs of apparition when he doesn't apparate out of the Shrieking Shack, preferring to sweat profusely and glance at the door instead. Sirius doesn't apparate out of the Shack when Harry is about to blast him either. And Lupin and Sirius fail to apparate out of Snape's clutches, preferring to take their chances with the dementors, apparently. Good grief! Why did JKR even add the concept of apparating to HP if she wasn't going to set up some reasonable rules governing it? Yeah, we know that you can't apparate off of the Hogwarts grounds. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But what about everything else that happens away from Hogwarts? I hope she fixes this soon, 'cause wizards aren't doing *nearly* enough apparating to suit me so far. Cranky!Cindy From kerelsen at quik.com Thu Jun 6 02:55:46 2002 From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 22:55:46 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Apparate or Die Trying (WAS TBAY: MACHINGARMCHAIR) References: Message-ID: <005601c20d05$aad6da00$ea21b0d8@kerelsen> No: HPFGUIDX 39442 ----- Original Message ----- From: "cindysphynx" > > This *is* bothersome, isn't it? JKR has not done a single thing to > explain the many instances when wizards ought to apparate out of > trouble but just don't. Sheez, all kinds of wizards just *stand* > there all flummoxed, about to be blasted to *bits* when they should > be popping right out of there? Well, if there are more than one DE present in these raids, could some of them have the job of doing some sort of temporary anti-apparition wards to keep the victims from escaping? > > OK, so James and Lily don't apparate, er, because they can't do it > with Baby Harry. Fine. Frank and Mrs. Longbottom have the same > problem with Toddler Neville. Whatever. Hmmm. It is true that we've only ever seen single wizards apparate... they don't seem to be able to take another person along with them (regardless of what so many fanfics like to claim). > So why doesn't Bertha apparate away? How about Real Moody pops out > of a tight spot before he is captured by Crouch Jr. and Wormtail? > How about Crouch Jr. apparates out of the top box to freedom? > Wormtail's chances of survival are probably better if he just > apparates away when Sirius corners him instead of this elaborate > self-mutilation scheme, right? That Wormtail *still* hasn't sorted > out the ins and outs of apparition when he doesn't apparate out of > the Shrieking Shack, preferring to sweat profusely and glance at the > door instead. Sirius doesn't apparate out of the Shack when Harry > is about to blast him either. And Lupin and Sirius fail to apparate > out of Snape's clutches, preferring to take their chances with the > dementors, apparently. With Bertha, we don't know the actual circumstances. I get the impression that she was lured into a place/position that gave Wormtail and Voldie the upper hand... and considering that she would have grown up during the former reign of terror, realizing who she was facing could have put her in an emotional state where she truly believed that there was absolutely no way for her to get out of there... "You can't get away from You-Know-Who." So she doesn't even try... Sirius hasn't gotten to practice Apparition for 12 years... there's all those warnings about if you aren't careful you'll splinch yourself... I get the impression that apparition is one of those things that you need to practice to be good at it... Without the practice, you're not going to be able to control it safely. Also, Sirius is probably still half in the Azkaban mindset... can't apparate out, can't use magic to get away, etc... and overcoming that kind of conditioning is very difficult, particularly in moments of stress. And I would definitely say that he's stressed out in the whole Shrieking Shack incident. And as far as Peter goes, perhaps he's just not good at it... he seems bloody pathetic at almost everything else we've seen of him. Barty Crouch, Jr. is in the same lack of practice boat as Sirius... We hear the word splinched describing a serious hazard of apparition, but we really don't know what it entails... is it just annoying, or is it potentially lethal? If the risks are high enough that you could die from a messed up apparition/disapparation, I'd see that the ones who were out of practice would be leery of trying it... As far as the real Moody goes... I'd guess that to apparate you need to be able to concentrate on your destination and all... but when Moody got jumped by Barty Jr, etc. he might have been really distracted by other things, like his alarms going off. And if they were jumping on him really fast, he wouldn't have had time to concentrate on a safe place to blink to... (although, now I wonder if wizards and witches who have jobs like Moody did wouldn't have trained themselves to apparate to a "safe haven" when things got too bad.... ) > Good grief! Why did JKR even add the concept of apparating to HP if > she wasn't going to set up some reasonable rules governing it? > Yeah, we know that you can't apparate off of the Hogwarts grounds. > Yeah, yeah, yeah. But what about everything else that happens away > from Hogwarts? > > I hope she fixes this soon, 'cause wizards aren't doing *nearly* > enough apparating to suit me so far. Not enough to suit me either, although my mind keeps coming up with excuses! Bernadette "Life's greatest happiness is to be convinced we are loved." - Victor Hugo, Les Miserables, 1862 From cindysphynx at comcast.net Thu Jun 6 02:53:36 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 02:53:36 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's dispensability In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39443 David wrote: >We display a great deal of collective ingenuity to develop plot >twists over Avery, Lupin, Florence, etc, yet when it comes to the >final denouement, everything is assumed to run on cliched tramlines. > > Why does Dumbledore have to be out of the way? And if he is, why > does he have to be killed in a duel or (perish the thought) an >ambush? Hey now! Ambushes aren't cliche! JKR hasn't given us a single ambush yet, so how can it rise to the level of a cliche. True, some of us are fans of ambushes and have decided that it is canon fact that there was a big bloody ambush. That's our, er instinctive subversive egalitarian humanistic reading of the text and so cannot be challenged. ;-) But JKR herself hasn't given us a proper ambush yet. Soon, but not yet. So you want us to think outside of the box on Dumbledore's demise, eh? OK, then. What lethal things has JKR established in the wizarding world that haven't killed anyone just yet? Here's a partial list: Dragons -- There could be some plot involving the return of Norbert, who devours Dumbledore right down to the twinkle. Werewolves -- Lupin, who we now know is Ever So Evil, could kill Dumbledore. Giants -- I'd keep an eye on that Fredwolfa character. The Giant Squid -- Come on. The Giant Squid *has* to kill someone, right? Miscellaneous Fantastic Beasts -- Lethifolds and the like. House Elf revolt -- "We is going to kill you, Master Dumbledore, we is." Skrewt attack -- Hagrid keeps one skrewt as a pet, which escapes and runs wild in the castle. Aragog -- Aragog is seriously bad news. He was going to eat Harry and Ron and Fang, so why not snack on Dumbledore instead? I think that about covers it. ;-) Cindy (sad to admit that there is no river of lava or catwalk in canon) From pennylin at swbell.net Thu Jun 6 02:55:29 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 21:55:29 -0500 Subject: Hermione's age - why it matters (was Canon disagreement; author intent) References: Message-ID: <005e01c20d05$9e30efc0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 39444 Hi -- Haven't read Dave's original post in full yet but .... --- In HPforGrownups at y..., dfrankiswork at n... wrote: <> Gee, thanks, Dave! Struggled??! The significance of the question, as I see it, is that it bears on the question of whether students receive their Hogwarts admission letter during the calendar year in which they turn 11 (which would make Hermione 2 mths younger than Harry) or only after they've turned 11 (which would make Hermione 10 mths older than Harry). That's not an earth-shattering issue, to be sure, but as Ali says, it ought to be one of those things that we just "know." It's pretty factual, and fanfic authors would certainly be interested in getting it right. Although I've typically argued that Hermione is 2 mths younger than Harry (1980 birth year) because I believe that the Hogwarts admission letter operates on a calendar year basis (there's that bit in the interview where JKR says that each *year* the Magical Quill records the birth of magical children -- rough paraphrase) .... I do note that I found a bit of 1979 evidence while recently re-listening to GoF. Regarding the age line, Dumbledore says "only students who are of age - that is to say, seventeen years of age or older -- will be allowed to put forward their names for consideration......and it is highly unlikely that students below sixth and seventh year will be able to cope with them....." This implies that 6th year students can be 17 yrs old. I see that Alicia Spinnet is a 4th year in CoS, so she's a 6th yr in GoF. But, Angelina Johnson, who has her birthday in late Oct & puts her name in as a legitimate 17 yr old -- do we know if she was a 6th or 7th year student? Since she went to the Ball with Fred and it just "seems" like all 3 chasers are the same age, I'd be inclined to think that Angelina *was* a 6th yr in GoF. Anyone have any canon to contradict that? Oh Angelina Johnson Expert Extraordinaire, Ebony??? *If* Angelina is a 6th year in GoF, then it would seem pretty solid proof that Hermione is 10 mths older than Harry as the system must work so that a student doesn't get his letter until he turns 11 & must wait until the beginning of the next term to start at Hogwarts. Hermione would have been forced to wait nearly an entire year if she received her letter in mid September 1990! One can imagine that *this* might explain how she has all the coursebooks memorized, yes? In any case, it appears that Dumbedore believes there *are* some 6th year students who would be 17 in time to enter the Tournament ... so even if Angelina is a 7th year, I think the argument still holds. I also note that 17 is apparently "of age" in the wizarding world. So, Harry will be an adult at the beginning of Book 7. :--D Penny (who's still muttering about having her argument labelled a "struggle" ....) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jun 6 05:08:58 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 05:08:58 -0000 Subject: Apparate or Die Trying (WAS TBAY: MACHINGARMCHAIR) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39445 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > > So why doesn't Bertha apparate away? She's pretty clueless isn't she? Maybe she's one of the can'ts. We ought to be allowed one. Cindy: >> How about Real Moody pops out of a tight spot before he is captured by Crouch Jr. and Wormtail? << The easiest answer is that there's no one way anti-apparition warding. That is, if Moody protects his house so people can't apparate into it, he can't apparate out. The same has to apply to the Shrieking Shack. It was made to protect people from a werewolf. You wouldn't want them apparating in out of curiosity. If nobody can get in, nobody can get out. Cindy: >> How about Crouch Jr. apparates out of the top box to freedom?<< Winky is binding him. >>Wormtail's chances of survival are probably better if he just apparates away when Sirius corners him instead of this elaborate self-mutilation scheme, right? << JKR: Well, the Ministry of Magic keeps tabs on people apparating. That's why you have to have a license to do it, and the moment you abuse it you can find yourself in serious trouble (or Azkaban!). Scholastic Chat Oct. 2000. So if Pettigrew apparated, the Ministry would have detected it and known that he was still alive. Pippin From amanda_snape at juno.com Thu Jun 6 04:20:35 2002 From: amanda_snape at juno.com (amanda_snape at juno.com) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 23:20:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Apparate or Die Trying / Dumbledore's Dispensability Message-ID: <20020605.232035.-4008651.2.amanda_snape@juno.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39446 ---------------->Apparate or Die Trying On Thu, 06 Jun 2002 02:28:52 -0000 "cindysphynx" writes: > This *is* bothersome, isn't it? JKR has not done a single thing to > explain the many instances when wizards ought to apparate out of > trouble but just don't. Sheez, all kinds of wizards just *stand* > there all flummoxed, about to be blasted to *bits* when they should > be popping right out of there? ~*Maybe a power of Dark wizards is the ability to impair certain powers of other wizards at will? Sort of like the Dementors' power of sucking the happiness out of a room? Or maybe, like you said, the victims are simply flummoxed. I would be paralyzed with fear if a DE showed up on my doorstep! > OK, so James and Lily don't apparate, er, because they can't do it > with Baby Harry. Fine. Frank and Mrs. Longbottom have the same > problem with Toddler Neville. Whatever. ~*Darn, where's that jar of floo powder when you need it? ^_~ Hey, you have to cut the Potters a break. It may have been different if it was a couple of DE thugs, but LV *himself*? ... I'm still not satisfied with the Longbottoms, though. Sure, you're being tortured by evil Death Eaters. Sure, you're probably really distracted. Maybe your kid is even being held hostage (where was Neville when all of this was happening?) But you'd think at least one of them could have popped out of there and gone for help! > So why doesn't Bertha apparate away? ~*How much do we really know about Apparating? Does it require a wand or a special command, or is it some of this mysterious "wandless magic" JKR has hinted at? Even if Bertha realised who Peter was, would she have been in a position to Apparate away? > How about Real Moody pops out > of a tight spot before he is captured by Crouch Jr. and Wormtail? ~*Crouch Jr. and Wormtail: two of _Voldemort_'s followers. I'm willing to bet they found some way to stop him Apparating - after all, I wouldn't just *ambush* (tee hee) one of the most powerful Aurors around without a Plan B, would you? > How about Crouch Jr. apparates out of the top box to freedom? ~*Wasn't he under Imperius? And if he was still magically bonded to Winky, he couldn't have anyway. Apparently, you can't apparate with passengers - and house elves have their own kind of magic, too. > Wormtail's chances of survival are probably better if he just > apparates away when Sirius corners him instead of this elaborate > self-mutilation scheme, right? ~*Ah, but then PoA would have been a Very Short Novel! ^_~ Besides, you have to give Peter *some* credit here. Which one is better: Apparate, and live to be hunted down for revenge another day... or fake your death and frame the guy who could incriminate you? *Jeopardy theme* >That Wormtail *still* hasn't sorted > out the ins and outs of apparition when he doesn't apparate out of > the Shrieking Shack, preferring to sweat profusely and glance at the > door instead. Sirius doesn't apparate out of the Shack when Harry > is about to blast him either. And Lupin and Sirius fail to apparate > out of Snape's clutches, preferring to take their chances with the > dementors, apparently. ~*In all of these cases, the wizards in question were in a weakened state. Peter's been a rat for 12 years, Sirius has been in Azkaban or on the run, and Lupin is fighting the full moon. You just can't win in the Potterverse! > Good grief! Why did JKR even add the concept of apparating to HP if > she wasn't going to set up some reasonable rules governing it? > Yeah, we know that you can't apparate off of the Hogwarts grounds. > Yeah, yeah, yeah. But what about everything else that happens away > from Hogwarts? ~*If there's a charm that can keep you from Apparating at Hogwarts, surely the DEs have tapped into this handy magic and made their own? Who wants to chase down innocent Mudbloods, after all, when you can just sit there and keep them from Apparating and AK them on the spot - without even getting your robes dirty! Now there's the kind of demented, evil, DE logic we all know and love.... > I hope she fixes this soon, 'cause wizards aren't doing *nearly* > enough apparating to suit me so far. ~*Yep, you're right. *sigh* Wizards in the Potterverse must just have incredibly bad luck(obviously - being AK'd can't be too pleasant...) I don't think it's a Flint on JKR's part, though - seems to me that every AK'd wizard we've met so far died because there was No Other Way Out. ----------->Dumbledore's Dispensability >So you want us to think outside of the box on Dumbledore's demise, >eh? OK, then. What lethal things has JKR established in the >wizarding world that haven't killed anyone just yet? >Here's a partial list: ~*You left off a few: -Defective broomstick -Arsenic-laced pumpkin juice -Bludger gone astray -Tragic fire in Dumbledore's office (thanks, Fawkes) -Those chains Filch mentions: some ominous foreshadowing? -The Monster Book of Monsters -Runaway Gringotts cart Ah, the possibilities..... ^_~ ~*Amanda Snape who gets annoyed every time she runs spellcheck and it tries to change HPforGrownups to "phosphorus" ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. From chetah27 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 6 04:28:04 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 04:28:04 -0000 Subject: Maybe Hagrid is the LOYAL person(who just has some major [confidence?] problems) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39447 greg_a126 wrote: > My question is why now? Why would Hagrid "grow up" now? This is > not the first wizarding war that Hagrid will have lived through. We > know that Hagrid took on his gamekeeping duties fifty years ago, > which means that he lived through Voldemort's first reign of > terror. (Coincidentally, I've always wondered if Hagrid knows > Voldemort's real name as Tom Riddle & the person who got him kicked > out of school, but that's neither here nor there.) > So if he lived through Voldemort's first reign of terror & is now > approaching 70 years of age (getting kicked out of school 50 years > ago) both imply to me that he's done all the "growing up" that he's > going to do. But what if he's more involved than he was last time? Yeah, you have a point, he did live through Voldemort's first reign, but(as far as I can tell) he was living at Hogwarts the entire time. And according to all that we've heard, Voldemort never dared to attack Hogwarts. Remember, Hogwarts is probably the safest place in the world, according to Hagrid(IIRC). But I think that's starting to change, as have/are alot of things. Also, I think Hagrid has -alot- of growing up to do(emotionally, that is). Just because he's that old doesn't mean he's done all the growing he has to do. I think alot of things could change and cause him to grow over the last few books- starting a relationship with Madame Maxime, confronting his giantess mother, Dumbledore's death, Voldemort outrightly attacking Hogwarts, etc. > Second, Dumbledore trusted Hagrid to bring the Boy-Who-Lived to > Hogwarts. Over the course of 24 hours Harry Potter went from being > just a nother wizard child who happened to have powerful parents, to > the most famous wizarding boy in the world & who does Dumbledore > trust to bring Harry Potter to start his new life? Hagrid. You > don't just go from one day being just the groundskeeper, to being > trusted with the safety of the most important wizard in the world. > We know little to nothing about what happened during the first war. He has been the Hogwarts gamekeeper for over 50 years, but as you said so yourself- he doesn't go from being kicked out of Hogwarts to being entrusted with not only bringing Harry to his new life at Hogwarts, but also retrieving the boy from the wreckage of his parents' house. So that leads me to believe that perhaps Hagrid wasn't always as involved as he is now with everything- I think he had to work for what little respect he's gotten. There also seems to be a sort of core group of the staff that usually knows alot about what's going on: Snape, Hagrid, McGonagall, and sometimes Flitwick. And I think Hagrid really prides himself on being part of that core group. Hagrid is a wonderful character, he's extremely friendly, nice, considerate, he has a huge heart and I love him for it....but all the same, I think he might go through a few changes before the war is over with. > All we know is the death of the few people that Hagrid mentioned the > first time he met Harry in the PS, and nearly everyone assumes that > the Order of the Pheonix is charged with protecting the wizarding > world against Voldemort. Beyond that, we're pretty well clueless. > It's quite possible that Hagrid did something to prove his loyalty > to Dumbledore in the midsts of a wizarding war before Harry was even > a twinkle in his parents eyes. It is quite possible, lots of things are quite possible in that time period because we know next to nothing about it. But as I stated before, I think this second time round with Voldemort will perhaps be worse. Voldemort will probably be more desperate, and also on the road of revenge. ~Aldrea From Ali at zymurgy.org Thu Jun 6 10:42:25 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 10:42:25 -0000 Subject: Harry and the riddle of Riddle Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39448 The recent thread about Voldemort being Harry's grandfather has made me wonder about some of the half hints / foreshaowings, red herrings or simple narrative that JKR has slotted into the text: "Whilst Harry was sure he had never heard the name T.M.Riddle before, it still seemed to mean something to him, almost as though Riddle was a friend he'd had when he was very small, and half-forgotten" p174 COS (UK paperback). Could Harry be remembering a friend or relative - from either his babyhood, or maybe a realtive of Harry AND the Dursleys. But this pasage is surely not insignificant? To keep resemblances consistent, the relation should be on James' side, so maybe Voldemort coould be Harry's grandfather, Great-Uncle - or perhaps there is yet anoher unexplained significance. I have read a theory that Voldie had a sister, because of Dobby's reaction to Harry asking if Voldie had a brother: "Dobby shook his head, his eyes wider than ever" p 18 COS. It was argued that the eyes widening were hinting to Harry that he close ie a sister not a brother. Whatever the truth on this though, it turned out not to be relevant to the COS plotline. Another excerpt that I still ownder about is when Tom Riddle says that he and HArry are: "Probably the only two Parselmouths to come to Hogwarts since the great Slytherin himself" I've heard of recessive genes, but has it really taken 1,000 years to resurface? Perhaps it's because Britain only has adders and grass snakes, so that until the advent of zoos, many potential parselmouths would never come across a snake to discover their skill. And yet, the way Ron says "it's not a very common gift" p 146 COS, seems to imply that it is not as rare as once in every 1,000 years would imply. Hmnn, what does this mean though? Perhaps it's an example of fans examining the Potterverse too closely. I however wonder if it points to some sort of time-turning between the "demise" (if he did die) of Slytherin and Voldemort's birth. Alternatively, perhaps this could be explained by Voldie being an ancestor not a descendant of Slytherin. Dumbledore plays back Harry's statement when Harry mentions Riddle saying there were "strange likenesses" between Harry and Riddle - he doesn''r rule out a relationship here (although he does seem to rule out Harry being a descendant of Slytherin by saying Voldie is the last remaining one). Another piece of text that I need to be explained is when Crouch asks Harry:- "You're not his?" "No" said Harry.. "Dumbledore's?" (GOF UK hardback p 482) It was at this pont that I dived into the mad/unexplainable theory pool and decided that this could somehow point to Harry "being" Voldemort's and *Neville* being Dumbledore's. No, I can't defend this, I don't think I even believe it, but it just appeared in my mind as a possibility. I backed up the theory by deciding that that was why Dumbledore was so bitter about the Longbottom's insanity - because they were related. Oh yeah, and Neville had the memory charm not to forget about the Cruciatus Curse (which he obviously hasn't) but to forget that he is realted to Great Uncle Albus (Albus, Aberforth and Algie all brothers?). Can't think of a plausible argumetn why Neville shouldn't know he is realted to Dumbledore so the theory falls apart here. I'm not sure why Crouch should be asking Harry if he is "his" as in Voldemort's, but as Crouch has rather lost his marbles, his comments are ripe for speculation. If for example Harry turned out to be "Dumbledore's" who is "his"? Perhaps this whole speech was irrelevant though... Off at yet another tangent, but still on Harry, I have noticed relatively little empassioned debate about Harry himself. Whilst arguments rage foor/against Hermione, Ron, Snape etc, Harry seems to get comparatively nothing. I can think of Penny and Jenny of Ravensclaw willing to defend Harry to the hilt, but can't think offhand of many others. Perhaps it's because although we walk in is shoes on his journey, it is easier to identify with, or fantasise over some of the other characters whose flaws/qualities more closely resemble our own(?) I am not ashamed to admit that Harry is still my favourite character. He isn't above reproach, he does lie, fight and mistreat people (eg Parvati at the Ball), but this makes him "real". The fact that he does seem to have such strong moral fibre despite his traumatic life, makes him a hero - but not perfect which afterall would be "boring". I am fearful for Harry's future, but believe that JKR should cut him a break at the end of Book 7, to make up for the traumatic life she has given him until then. Ali who has rambled alot. From sparklin_red at yahoo.com Thu Jun 6 11:35:54 2002 From: sparklin_red at yahoo.com (sparklin_red) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 11:35:54 -0000 Subject: My Mistake Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39449 I realized that I screwed up yesterday on my Lupin is Evil But Not because of the Dementors post. When ever I quoted the book I put COS instead of POA. I realize that once I returned to work last night. * Twacks herself on the head* Thats what I get for staying up after my graveyard shift to post. I'll try not to do that again. Sparklin Red From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Jun 6 11:55:23 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 07:55:23 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry and the riddle of Riddle/Apparate or Die Trying Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39450 Ali: > The recent thread about Voldemort being Harry's grandfather has made > me wonder about some of the half hints / foreshaowings, red herrings > or simple narrative that JKR has slotted into the text: > > "Whilst Harry was sure he had never heard the name T.M.Riddle before, > it still seemed to mean something to him, almost as though Riddle was > a friend he'd had when he was very small, and half-forgotten" p174 > I have interpeted this as being to do with the connection between Harry and Voldemort. As there is a bit of Voldemort inside him, so there is a bit of Riddle. although it's interesting that Riddle's name meant something to him, when Voldemort's (and it's highly likely he heard his name, isn't it?) didn't. > > Could Harry be remembering a friend or relative - from either his > babyhood, or maybe a realtive of Harry AND the Dursleys. But this > pasage is surely not insignificant? To keep resemblances consistent, > the relation should be on James' side, so maybe Voldemort coould be > Harry's grandfather, Great-Uncle - or perhaps there is yet anoher > unexplained significance. I have read a theory that Voldie had a > sister, because of Dobby's reaction to Harry asking if Voldie had a > brother: > "Dobby shook his head, his eyes wider than ever" p 18 COS. > It was argued that the eyes widening were hinting to Harry that he > close ie a sister not a brother. Whatever the truth on this though, > That would be entirely consistent with Dobby's method of communicating. Yes, the connection should be on his father's side. I am convinced he cannot be Voldemort's grandson, as that directly contradicts what Dumbledore says about Voldemort being Slytherin's last remaining descendent. Assuming that he knows. After all, he isn't *really* omniscient. How can he possibly know? If Dumbledore is correct, then a (full) sister poses the same problems. She would also be a descendent of Slytherin and so couldn't be Harry's grandmother. The connection would have to be with the Muggle, Riddle side of Tom's family, who, not unlike the Dursleys, seem to have some problems with the wizardry thing, don't they ? > > Another excerpt that I still wonder about is when Tom Riddle says > that he and Harry are: > > "Probably the only two Parselmouths to come to Hogwarts since the > great Slytherin himself" > > I've heard of recessive genes, but has it really taken 1,000 years to > resurface? Perhaps it's because Britain only has adders and grass > snakes, so that until the advent of zoos, many potential > parselmouths would never come across a snake to discover their > skill. And yet, the way Ron says "it's not a very common gift" p 146 > COS, seems to imply that it is not as rare as once in every 1,000 > years would imply. Hmnn, what does this mean though? Perhaps it's an > example of fans examining the Potterverse too closely. I however > wonder if it points to some sort of time-turning between the "demise" > (if he did die) of Slytherin and Voldemort's birth. Alternatively, > perhaps this could be explained by Voldie being an ancestor not a > Ron could just be indulging in classic British understatement! :-) Riddle does say *probably*. Given the negative connotations of being a Parselmouth, it's quite likely that children who knew in advance that they were (coming from wizarding families) kept quiet about it. Is it also possible that if it *is* associated with the Dark Arts, families with Parselmouth children favoured other schools - Durmstrang, for instance? OTOH, perhaps Parseltongue is a very rare gift indeed and has been passed down exclusively through the line of which Tom's mother was a descendent. Dumbledore explains Harry's ability as something acquired from Voldemort, after all. > > Dumbledore plays back Harry's statement when Harry mentions Riddle > saying there were "strange likenesses" between Harry and Riddle - he > doesn't rule out a relationship here (although he does seem to rule > out Harry being a descendant of Slytherin by saying Voldie is the > This is very true. But I do wonder if the likenesses are emphasised to bring out the contrast between what Harry and Voldemort choose to do with their similarities. I have a niggle of my own here. I find it very hard to believe that Slytherin can have only one living descendent. Surely the whole thing with genetics and inheritance and stuff is that your descendents increase with every passing generation? That's why so many people can trace themselves back to royalty. The only way I can see it happening (barring ruthless culling of relatives) is that Slytherin and his descendents operated a strict one-child policy for the last thousand years, which seems a bit unlikely. Although perhaps the ruthless culling of relatives isn't so unlikely! We do seem to see a bit of it ! (But you can't do it too early, as you need to ensure an heir.) ................................................................. On apparition Cindy: > So why doesn't Bertha apparate away? She's forgotten how? ;-) I doubt she realised the need until it was too late > of a tight spot before he is captured by > Crouch Jr. and Wormtail? I think Pippin's covered this with her anti-apparition charm or whatever. > How about Crouch Jr. apparates out of the top box to freedom? There *must* have been some measures in place there, I think, for Sr to have risked letting him out. In addition his powers seem weakened by the Imperius. > Wormtail's chances of survival are probably better if he just > apparates away when Sirius corners him instead of this elaborate > self-mutilation scheme, right? That Wormtail *still* hasn't sorted > out the ins and outs of apparition when he doesn't apparate out of > the Shrieking Shack, preferring to sweat profusely and glance at the > Pettigrew isn't a wizard of the same order as the other Marauders. He needed *lots* of help to become an animagus. so perhaps he just can't. It *is* the obvious thing for him to do, though. Sirius doesn't apparate out of the Shack when Harry > is about to blast him either. And Lupin and Sirius fail to apparate > out of Snape's clutches, preferring to take their chances with the > dementors, apparently. Sirius never *does* seem to do what would be best for him. :-) I don't think it would occur to him in the Shack, as he had business he wanted to attend to and I think he was prepared to die trying (that was grudging admiration, BTW, Cindy, just in case you missed it). But why let Snape take the advantage? > > Good grief! Why did JKR even add the concept of apparating to HP if > she wasn't going to set up some reasonable rules governing it? > Yeah, we know that you can't apparate off of the Hogwarts grounds. > Yeah, yeah, yeah. But what about everything else that happens away > It opens up some very big loopholes, if you ask me! > I hope she fixes this soon, 'cause wizards aren't doing *nearly* > Do you think wizards Bang when they apparate? House elves 'pop', don't they? Eloise (who originally read the title of this post as 'tie dying', which confused her somewhat!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From igenite_olwyn at blueyonder.co.uk Thu Jun 6 12:00:35 2002 From: igenite_olwyn at blueyonder.co.uk (Olwyn) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:00:35 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore Protecting the Stone References: Message-ID: <001a01c20d51$c491d980$0200a8c0@blueyonder.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 39451 Fakeplastikcheese wrote - >>I always wondered that! What was the point of Fluffy (and by implication, all the other tasks) if the stone was in a random room?<< Mayby JKR decided to have the Hogwarts staff use her own personal trick of misdirection. After all fluffy had to be guarding something right? Well most people would think so what with the trapdoor and all, Hermione certainly did, so most minds would automatically jump to the thought of "it must be down there" and would, after that, probably not even think of looking in a random room somewhere for the mirror and the stone. Olly [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Jun 6 12:44:22 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 12:44:22 -0000 Subject: Harry and the riddle of Riddle/Apparate or Die Trying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39452 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > Ali: > > The recent thread about Voldemort being Harry's grandfather has made me wonder about some of the half hints / foreshaowings, red herrings or simple narrative that JKR has slotted into the text: > > "Whilst Harry was sure he had never heard the name T.M.Riddle before, it still seemed to mean something to him, almost as though Riddle was a friend he'd had when he was very small, and half- forgotten" p174 > > Eloise: > > I have interpeted this as being to do with the connection between Harry and Voldemort. As there is a bit of Voldemort inside him, so there is a bit of Riddle. although it's interesting that Riddle's name meant something to him, when Voldemort's (and it's highly likely >he heard his name, isn't it?) didn't. Naama: I see it differently. The familiarity thing, IMO, is simply part of the insinuating magic of the Diary. For Memory!Riddle to work, the person holding the Diary must communicate with him via the Diary. So, you have a piece of Dark Magic that can operate only if it's victim voluntarily engages with it. There must be a lure, right? The sense of semi familiarity, curiosity, the inability to get rid of it - that's the way the magic of the Diary works on whoever holds it (i.e., Ginny was also drawn to the Diary in the same way). If it didn't, Ginny and Harry would have simply thrown the shabby, empty little notebood away. Eloise: > > I have a niggle of my own here. I find it very hard to believe that Slytherin can have only one living descendent. Surely the whole thing with genetics and inheritance and stuff is that your descendents increase with every passing generation? That's why so many people can >trace themselves back to royalty. Me: Yes, but lines can also die out. In the wizarding world, I assume that lines can die out not only through childnessness but also when the child is a squib. Eloise: > The only way I can see it happening (barring ruthless culling of relatives) is that Slytherin and his descendents operated a strict one-child policy for the last thousand years, which seems a bit unlikely. > Me: Not necessarily. One descendent may have several children, some of whom die childless. Naama From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 6 12:53:30 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 12:53:30 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Protecting the Stone In-Reply-To: <001a01c20d51$c491d980$0200a8c0@blueyonder.co.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39453 Another thought I have had on why the mirror was in the room was that Harry needed to find the mirror and know how it works before he incountered Voldermort. Would Harry have known to lie about what he saw in the mirror if he had not known how it works? If he had come upon the mirror for the first time when he saw Voldermort, he might have said that he sees the stone or even himself holding the stone without knowing how the mirror worked. The stone could have been in the mirror the entire time. Diversion is a good thing when trying to fool your enemy. Snape suspected Quirrell which almost insures that Dumbledore knew what he was up to. The annoucement at the beginning of the term was probably meant to throw him off the trail of the stone until the time was right. From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Jun 6 13:03:52 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 13:03:52 -0000 Subject: Apparate or Die Trying (WAS TBAY: MACHINGARMCHAIR) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39454 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Charis Julia wondered: > > >Why don't > > all the wizards Voldemort and the DEs went after just * > >Disapparate*? Is this (no!) a FLINT? I mean * why*? Somebody comes > >at you with a wand, you see the word Imperio, or Crucio or Avada > >Kedavra or whatever forming on their lips and you just * sit > >there*! Even though you're a wizard? > > Oh, Charis Julia. You really struck a nerve with me, sending me > into a full-blown uncontrollable *rant* about this! > > This *is* bothersome, isn't it? JKR has not done a single thing to > explain the many instances when wizards ought to apparate out of > trouble but just don't. Sheez, all kinds of wizards just *stand* > there all flummoxed, about to be blasted to *bits* when they should > be popping right out of there? > Several people tried to explain away each of the examples. I don't think that will wash. If in general, wizards can simply Disapparate when confronted with an enemy, it makes the whole concept of magic duels meaningless. I would suggest that although the wizard vanishes instantaneously in the physical plane, s/he is still traceable magically. Moreover , I would speculate that it is possible to lock on your opponent (particularly when confronting him/her), so that if s/he Disapparates, you can follow them immediately. (Rather like in Star Trek, where going into warp drive doesn't preclude the other ship from following you.) After all, we've only ever seen one duelling lesson. It could be one of the basic charms taught on the second lesson? Naama From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Thu Jun 6 13:20:19 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 13:20:19 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and the Profoundly Gifted Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39455 We have been having a spirited discussion over on OT-Chatter about the measurement of intelligence, and the best way of educating profoundly gifted (PG) children, who may roughly be characterised as the top 1 in 5000 on the IQ scale (properly defined). (The thread extends back over a couple of weeks now - it was sparked by a post from Amy about Stephen Jay Gould; search on his name, intelligence, underachievers, or gifted.) One thing that struck me about the discussion was the number of HPFGU people (certainly much more than 0.02% of the list membership) who were able to identify with the experience of PG children. It is of course not possible to identify which list members fit the criterion precisely. I wondered if there was any connection. Eventually A Vulgarweed posted (message 11020 on OT-Chatter): >>>Funny, this thread. When I first read HP & the S/PS, it took me back immediately to the first summers I got to leave my crappy little town and go to various University's summer programs for gifted kids, and kids interested in wildlife, and young writers: I felt like I had gotten a mysterious invitation to study at a wondrous place where I _belonged_ as I had never belonged before. So in my highly subjective emotional reading (that was very similar to my readings of Madeleine L'Engle's Time trilogy and Susan Cooper's _The Dark Is Rising_ series and the Chronicles of Narnia, etc.) I took magic and the ability to see workings of the universe others don't (and being reviled and misunderstood for that ability) as an extended metaphor *for* giftedness.>>> So: is there something about HP which attracts people who are very gifted, or perhaps feel they do not fit in with the educational system as they find it? Vulgarweed's post suggests an obvious possibility. But don't we all to an extent feel that way? Is that any different from the appeal to the other hundred million Harry fans, who can all take Harry's magic as a metaphor for their own individuality and giftedness in the wider sense? If not, is there something about HPFGU which appeals to the very gifted? (I think answers to this may have to go back OT) So, take it away, ever-argumentative listies. David From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com Thu Jun 6 13:38:03 2002 From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 13:38:03 -0000 Subject: Hermione's age - why it matters was Canon disagreement; author intent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39456 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" wrote: > I was so adamant that I was right about my interpretation, that I > dared to challenge "Steve of the Lexicon" offlist - only to presented > with the only piece of canon on the matter. From memory this was > Dumbledore calling Harry and Hermione "13 Year old wizards" at the > end of POA - implying that Hermione must have her birthday after > Harry. Of course, being stubborn I think that JKR simply over- > generalised here, and Hermione MUST be older than Harry. Alright, enough of this treating me like I'm somehow different than everyone else. I don't have any sort of inside track here on what's canon and what isn't or what's more right. I'm just some guy. My opinion doesn't count for more than anyone else's. But I do have rules for my own site, and those rules are that when all else fails, I go with what's in the book. Personally, I think that Hermione might very well be older than Harry. But until actual evidence crops up to prove it one way or another, I just go with what the book says. I realize that what the books says can be interpreted as a generalization on Dumbledore's part, but that's what he said and there's nothing else to prove otherwise. Our (probably true) assumptions that JKR is following the British system for her school is not proof on the same level of a statement in the book, even if that statement is problematic. And please, before anyone says that I'm making some sort of arbitrary rule about which shaky evidence is more correct, note that I said that I only make such rules for my website. I have to have those kinds of rules in order to do my work. I don't care a fig about what sort of rules everyone else wants to use. And I don't expect everyone to use my rules. Also, you will note on the Lexicon that I include a paragraph explaining why I went with the date that I did and giving the alternate point of view. In fact, if someone wants to write a nice concise analysis of the arguments pro and con, I would consider publishing it. I hvae email all the time from people begging me to publish more essays. I am not some sort of "canon policeman" and I don't make canon rules for fandom. I'm just a lowly librarian who is more than ready for summer vacation to start (in two days and counting...praise the Lord) Steve ps I've added a few things to the Lexicon, and coming soon is an absolutely incredible calendar of GoF by AmyZ which will knock your socks off! From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Thu Jun 6 14:01:56 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 10:01:56 -0400 Subject: Canon argument and Hermione's age Message-ID: <342CC6D0.0736F07A.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39457 I rushed in where Angelinas fear to tread: > > < nearly 12 at the begining of PS? It has produced some pretty > impassioned writing on both sides. However, when interested listies > outside the debate asked (more than once) why it mattered, hardly > anyone was able to explain it - only Penny really rose to the > challenge, and she struggled, IMO.>> Penny swelled: > > Gee, thanks, Dave! Struggled??! I'd better retract that about struggling as I had a quick look at the archives and found the relevant posts (I think). Message 29806 refers. See also 28241, also by Penny. They didn't correspond to my memory, really, the nearest being, from the end of 28241: <<<<<<< Anyway ... this is a long way of saying that while I have no hard evidence to support my position, my instinct is that Hermione was born in 1980. Given that I was an older kid myself, I don't know why or how I came to that conclusion other than my interpretation of the "year" reference by JKR is a calendar-year interpretation for some reason.>>>>>>> The relevance to the current thread is that phrase "I don't know why or how". But really, the point about Penny personally is that she faced up to the question when asked 'Why does it matter?' - most of the list fell silent. Penny, subsiding: >>> The significance of the question, as I see it, is that it bears on the question of whether students receive their Hogwarts admission letter during the calendar year in which they turn 11 (which would make Hermione 2 mths younger than Harry) or only after they've turned 11 (which would make Hermione 10 mths older than Harry). That's not an earth-shattering issue, to be sure, but as Ali says, it ought to be one of those things that we just "know." It's pretty factual, and fanfic authors would certainly be interested in getting it right.>>> The third possibility, which Penny discussed in those earlier posts, is that students receive their letter towards the end of the academic year they turn 11. That possibility gains a degree of plausibility from the fact that the Hogwarts year aligns with the UK academic year, and that Ginny's letter also arrives in the summer, not apparently related to a birthday. I take the point about fanfic authors wanting to get things right. However, it seems to me that we simply don't have enough information to decide the issue, so if the plot of a fanfic turned on Hermione's age, it would seem legitimate for the author to tacitly acknowledge the uncertainty, perhaps by having the characters as confused as we are ("Gee, Hermione, I didn't realize you were sixteen already" "Oh, and how old did you think I was, Mary Sue?"), and then go with their decision. I'm not sure that an arbitrary decision taken for writing purposes necessarily leads to the strength of feeling that has been expressed on the issue. Ali's point that there is a nationalistic element perhaps goes some way to explaining why British exponents of old!Hermione dig their heels in, in the face of "the youngest people in my grade school year were born in September" assertions from across the Atlantic, with their implication that the poster's school experience is normative for the UK situation. I'm not sure that there is any intrinsic American reason for believing in young!Hermione, though. I was one of the ones who kept quiet when the question 'why does it matter?' was raised, mostly because it doesn't, to me. However, I did have some mean and nasty suspicions at the time about why it might matter to other people. None of them are concerned with the *evidence* for either position, they all deal with the *consequences* in the wider story, should she be young or old. FWIW, here they are: "It would be improper for a teenage girl to date someone younger than herself/Hermione could not respect someone younger than herself as a date, So That Would Put the Kybosh on H/H or H/R and We Couldn't Have That, Could We?" "I identify with Hermione's academic and bookish bent - it is rare for fiction about children to have a Strong Female Character and if her strength and academic development were found to be due to an age advantage it would Undermine the Warm Feeling I Get About Myself When I See Myself Represented in Fiction" "For a fourteen year old girl to date a seventeen year old boy would be Tew Ew to be Trew, so I must assume Hermione is fifteen, In Which Case It Would Just About Be All Right, But Still Only Just, Mind You, And There's No Telling What I Might Do If Someone Points Out That Krum is Nearly Eighteen at the QWC" "If old!Hermione is true, then she will, according to the UK's decadent and corrupt legal system, reach the age of consent a few weeks into OOP, and That Just Doesn't Seem Right" "I find Hermione's shrill and tiresome bossiness with the boys embarrassing and put it down to immaturity. For her to turn out to be older would be Embarrassing Beyond Belief, Up There With Jar-Jar Binks" Now, the above are caricatures (er, you worked that out for yourselves, right?), but I think it more credible that fixed views about Hermione's age stem from half-perceived feelings about teenage sexuality or the emotional benefits that accrue from identifying with a character, than they do from the inner workings of bureaucratic education systems. In general I think strong feelings about a theory come from its perceived consequences, not the evidence for or against it. However, having got the above out of the way, another possibility occurs to me. This is that the details of the reading process are considered very intimate by the reader, and any challenge to the way they work generates an automatic strong negative reaction. If that is so, then readers may start off with a very mild impression about Hermione's age, based on her interactions in the first half of PS. Entrenched views are then the result of later argument, not its cause. After the fact, chasing down those original mild impressions may be almost impossible as the debating sides remember only their subsequent 'canon discoveries' - discoveries that are actually irrelevant to the process by which the conclusion was arrived at. 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 aiz24 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 6 14:33:14 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 10:33:14 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione's age - why it matters Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39458 David wrote: ><nearly 12 at the begining of PS? It has produced some pretty >impassioned writing on both sides. However, when interested listies >outside the debate asked (more than once) why it mattered, hardly >anyone was able to explain it Penny wrote: >The significance of the question, as I see it, is that it bears on the > >question of whether students receive their Hogwarts admission letter > >during the calendar year in which they turn 11 (which would make > >Hermione 2 mths younger than Harry) or only after they've turned 11 >(which would make Hermione 10 mths older than Harry). That's not an > >earth-shattering issue, to be sure, but as Ali says, it ought to be >one >of those things that we just "know." It's pretty factual, and >fanfic >authors would certainly be interested in getting it right. Hm. I'm still not getting it. I believe I was one of the people who wanted to know why it mattered, and "it would be useful to fanfic authors" doesn't answer the kind of "mattered" I meant. What I meant was, why did people care so deeply? Emotions were really running strong about this seemingly trivial matter. Maybe Ali hit it on the head--we each just like to be right. But canon is so scant on this issue that being right on it seems to be about as meaningful as being right about the color of Lupin's eyes, or whether Dumbledore wears boxers or briefs. We can each dig in on our particular position, but we might as well just be betting on red or black on the roulette wheel, 'cause it's totally random which answer is going to prove to be right, if indeed JKR ever sees fit to tell us. (*Almost* totally random, she adds hastily, admitting that there are supports, albeit weak ones, for Old! and Young!Hermione.) Amy Z _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From suzchiles at pobox.com Thu Jun 6 14:43:00 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 07:43:00 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Canon argument and Hermione's age In-Reply-To: <342CC6D0.0736F07A.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39459 I suspect Hermione celebrated her 11th birthday at Hogwarts. My birthday is the same as Hermione's ... I started school early, as I was considered "bright" and that I would celebrate my birthday less than a month after the usual cut-off date. I would posit that Hermione started school early herself for similar reasons. And, of course, we should not forget that typically girls are more advanced socially than boys at this age. Zoe From Ali at zymurgy.org Thu Jun 6 15:18:10 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 15:18:10 -0000 Subject: Hermione's age - Apology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39460 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hp_lexicon" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" wrote: > > > I was so adamant that I was right about my interpretation, that I > > dared to challenge "Steve of the Lexicon" offlist - only to > presented > > with the only piece of canon on the matter. From memory this was > > Dumbledore calling Harry and Hermione "13 Year old wizards" at the > > end of POA - implying that Hermione must have her birthday after > > Harry. Of course, being stubborn I think that JKR simply over- > > generalised here, and Hermione MUST be older than Harry. > > Alright, enough of this treating me like I'm somehow different than > everyone else. I don't have any sort of inside track here on what's > canon and what isn't or what's more right. I'm just some guy. My > opinion doesn't count for more than anyone else's. > Sorry, I wasn't meaning to insult you - quite the opposite in fact. I really respect the works in the Lexicon, and am happy to abide by your rules in relying on Canon facts - in the absence of any other information. The only reason I mentioned you was because I respect the Lexicon and your logical approach. My point was that I was stubborn enough to still feel Hermione was older despite the only evidence to the contrary. In other words, whilst I respect the objectivity of your methods, I can't always agree with the outcome. Sorry again Ali From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Jun 6 15:36:45 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 15:36:45 -0000 Subject: Apparate or Die Trying (WAS TBAY: MACHINGARMCHAIR) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39461 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Charis Julia wondered: > > >Why don't > > all the wizards Voldemort and the DEs went after just * > >Disapparate*? Is this (no!) a FLINT? I mean * why*? Somebody comes > >at you with a wand, you see the word Imperio, or Crucio or Avada > >Kedavra or whatever forming on their lips and you just * sit > >there*! Even though you're a wizard? > > > > Now granted not all wizards can Apparate. Fine I accept that. But > > hey, don't tell me Frank Longbottom the famous Auror couldn't! Not > > James the Animagus surely! So, what's up? > > Oh, Charis Julia. You really struck a nerve with me, sending me > into a full-blown uncontrollable *rant* about this! > > This *is* bothersome, isn't it? JKR has not done a single thing to > explain the many instances when wizards ought to apparate out of > trouble but just don't. Sheez, all kinds of wizards just *stand* > there all flummoxed, about to be blasted to *bits* when they should > be popping right out of there? > Cranky!Cindy The easiest reason is that it takes a little time to apparate, during which time you're half-here/half-there, which explains how can bodies mix when several people do it at once, and how things can go wrong *in pieces*: if it was instantaneous, they might be other problems, but there would be no reason for your arm to be left behind. During those precious seconds, a wizard cannot do a simgle blessed thing, and he's fully in the aim of his enemy, so apparating cannot be used for a quick escape, or you would be blasted into smitherins when you started to fade (and became a sitting duck). Another possiblity is that there is a simple spell any fith-year knows that will stop someone from apparating (again, with umpleasant secondary effects, like daze at being shocked into corporality, or whatever), so trying to apparate will just sell you to the enemy. Finally, an idea tying with my theories on wizard magical shields (enchantments that will deflect or repell most spells except unforgivables), it's possible that they prevent you from apparating (in the same way the prevent magic from coming in), so if you are preparing for a duel and you put on a shield or two, your options are shut in the apparating department unless you want to lower your shields (this last idea has almost no canon to back it up. The others, I believe, are somewhat more probable). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From cindysphynx at comcast.net Thu Jun 6 16:23:11 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 16:23:11 -0000 Subject: Apparate or Die Trying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39462 Grey Wolf wrote: > The easiest reason is that it takes a little time to apparate, >during which time you're half-here/half-there, which explains how >can bodies mix when several people do it at once, and how things >can go wrong *in pieces*: if it was instantaneous, they might be >other problems, but there would be no reason for your arm to be >left behind. I don't have a problem with any of the explanations people have offered for why wizards don't apparate out of a tight spot. Well, OK, that's not true. I *do* have a problem. The problem is that there is no *canon* to cite for any of it. And you all *know* what a stickler for canonical purity I can be. ;-) Really, now. JKR could have given us more limits on apparating. We *see* Bagman apparate *twice* in GoF, so JKR had the opportunity to describe the process. (In fact, the main purpose for mentioning that Bagman apparates into and out of the camp grounds is to establish the concept, right?) Does he fade out slowly? Is there an incantation? Does he use his wand? Does he appear exhausted? Does it take some time? Well, you'd never know by reading GoF. All we learn about the "rules" of apparating is that apparating makes a small pop, it is difficult, it can go wrong (although splinched people can be fixed), and that it is inaccurate over long distances, IIRC. Those limitations are not nearly sufficient to ease my worries when we are on the brink of a struggle for control of the whole wizarding world. The funny thing is that JKR didn't have to skimp on the rules of apparating in the way she did. (Yes, I know the series isn't finished so I can't be sure about what I'm about to say, but that's never stopped me before). So far, the only real purpose of establishing the ability to apparate is to explain how the DEs wind up in the graveyard. So JKR could have linked apparating to Voldemort. Just make it a Dark Art possible only via the Dark Mark on Voldemort's command and be done with it. Someone mentioned to me off-list that the Imperius Curse has some of the same pitfalls -- that it is a huge loophole that leads to all manner of FLINTS. Maybe so. But at least we have two limits on Imperius that help JKR worm her way out of FLINTS. It can be thrown off, and it is Unforgivable. Maybe these limitations are insufficient, but they strike me as more substantial than the limits on apparating. So then. Is apparating the magical concept that has the highest potential to generate mega-FLINTS in future books? Cindy From ck32976 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 6 16:31:21 2002 From: ck32976 at yahoo.com (ck32976) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 16:31:21 -0000 Subject: Basilisk Attacks Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39463 Hello All! I thought I'd revisit CoS for a minute... I'm listening to the audio now. I was wondering about how the basilisk actually attacks people. I mean I know that it travels through the pipes, but the attacks are mostly in the hallways. How does the basilisk get into the hallway? I was thinking maybe water fountains or some such thing, but I'm not sure that explains everything. Also, how are the attcks targeted? Does anyone have any ideas? If this has already been discussed at length, I'm sorry for bringing it up again. It has just been bugging me. Also, when Harry hears the voice of the basilisk, it is saying that it is hungry, and that it wants to rip, etc (sorry, I don't have my book with me to reference). Why doesn't it feed on the petrified victims? I know that's pretty gross, but why not? Also, Seeing as how the entrance to the chamber is in Myrtle's bathroom, why doesn't she know more about what's going on? I know that she wasn't there on Halloween, but what about the other times it was opened? Just a few thoughts that have been nagging at me. Carrie-Ann (who really should get back to work...) From cindysphynx at comcast.net Thu Jun 6 16:37:32 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 16:37:32 -0000 Subject: When Does Age Matter? (WAS Canon argument and Hermione's age) In-Reply-To: <342CC6D0.0736F07A.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39464 David wrote (about why Hermione's age matters): >But really, the point about Penny personally is that she faced up >to the question when asked 'Why does it matter?' - most of the list >fell silent. Yes . . . but . . . none of these reasons really relates very much to any outstanding Big Canon Mystery, the plot of any of the first four books or (dare I even say this?) the potential plots of future books. If it did, then I'd launch myself into the debate with great vigor. So I need a hook. What possible difference could a few months one way or the other in Hermione's age make? Put differently, in what ways in the books to date has age made any difference at all? Mmmm. How about this? In Book 7, Hermione might wish to obtain a license to Apparate. If she is younger than Harry and Ron, then she might be denied her license and she might be blasted to bits when the boys decide to abandon her as they apparate to save their own necks. Not nice. Not nice at all. Or . . . . there might be a future instance in which Dumbledore or someone else decides to put an Age Line around something to secure it, and Hermione can't penetrate the Age Line because she is too young or too old. Yeah, it's a real stretch, isn't it? Cindy (who thinks Hermione should just lie about her age like everyone else) From divaclv at aol.com Thu Jun 6 16:15:34 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 16:15:34 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's dispensability In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39465 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: (snip) > So you want us to think outside of the box on Dumbledore's demise, > eh? OK, then. What lethal things has JKR established in the > wizarding world that haven't killed anyone just yet? > Whoever said Dumbledore's death had to be violent? I forget his exact age, but the man's well past his centennial. I could easily see him dying of natural causes--it would almost be more tragic in that way, to have nature take its inevitable course now, when he's most needed. ~Christi From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Jun 6 16:48:29 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 16:48:29 -0000 Subject: Apparate or Die Trying (WAS TBAY: MACHINGARMCHAIR) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39466 Why don't wizards ever seem to disapparate themselves out of trouble? Grey Wolf suggested: > The easiest reason is that it takes a little time to apparate, > during which time you're half-here/half-there. . . . During those > precious seconds, a wizard cannot do a simgle blessed thing, and > he's fully in the aim of his enemy, so apparating cannot be used > for a quick escape, or you would be blasted into smitherins when > you started to fade (and became a sitting duck). I like this suggestion, but I'm afraid that apparition does seem to be fairly instantaneous. We see Ludo Bagman do it in Chapter Nine of _GoF:_ "Bagman swore loudly. 'Damn them!' he said, looking quite distracted, and without another word, he Disapparated with a small *pop*!" (Thus answering Eloise's question. Apparently when wizards disapparate, they "pop," just like House Elves do.) Now admittedly, Bagman does look "distracted." But it doesn't seem to take him more than a second or so, if that, to Disapparate, nor does he "fade" or have any apparant transitional period at all. I suppose, though, that a good magical duellist could probably whip off a spell at an opponent in even that split-second, and I am perfectly willing to entertain the notion that being the target of *any* spell while in the middle of disapparating might interfere with the process sufficiently to cause a splinch. That fact alone might cause wizards to think twice about trying to disapparate out of trouble in the middle of a magical confrontation. This might explain why Rosier, for example, who was unwilling to be taken alive by the Aurors, didn't just flee them rather than fighting to the death. Once you're already locked in combat, I imagine that it's really just a bit too late for that option. I also find Grey Wolf's suggestion that using any form of magical shield (if such do in fact exist) would prevent one from apparating to be perfectly sensible and plausible. Really, it seems to me that there are perfectly reasonable explanations for wizards failing to consider apparating as an option in all of the examples that Cindy originally cited. We never see anyone save Dobby (who as an Elf has special magical powers and therefore is not bothered by shields and such) apparate in or out of a house. (Percy does so *inside* the Burrow, but apparating down the stairs does not involve crossing the boundaries of the house itself.) I imagine that this is because all wizarding houses are protected, as Hogwarts is, against this form of intrusion as a matter of basic security. If you can't apparate in, then you can't disapparate out. This covers the Potters, the Longbottoms, and Peter in the Shrieking Shack. Apparating does not help you if you are ambushed or otherwise taken by surprise because, um, well, isn't that the whole point of being taken by *surprise?* So Bertha Jorkins didn't disapparate out of trouble because from her point of view, one minute she was out for a nice walk with Peter Pettigrew (had that memory charm problem of hers led her to forget that he was supposed to be dead, perhaps?), and the next minute she was unconscious or under Imperius or stunned or otherwise rendered incapable. Same with Moody. He went out to confront whatever was troubling his trash bins, and he got jumped. Crouch Sr. opened his front door and was immediately hit with the Imperius. None of these people really ever had the opportunity to disapparate themselves out of trouble. You need to be in good mental and physical condition to apparate. We know that it is very difficult, and that if done improperly, it can lead you into trouble. I think it reasonable to assume that you have to be in pretty good form to pull it off. So Lupin takes the train, rather than apparating to Hogsmeade, because he is *ill.* Sirius doesn't apparate anywhere because he's a weakened and emaciated wreck. Crouch Jr. has just spent over a decade under the Imperius Curse in that Top Box, so even if Winky weren't binding him, he probably wouldn't have been in any condition to apparate anywhere anyway. And Pettigrew at the end of _PoA_ isn't in good condition either: he's sick and weak; he's been scrounging around for food in Hagrid's cupboards; and on top of all of that, he's just spent over a decade in his animagus form, which has just *got* to mess with your magical abilities. Nah. It doesn't bother me at all. You know what does sometimes trouble my sleep though? Wondering how all of those Death Eaters actually got *home* from the graveyard. I do worry about that sometimes. After all, how well can you apparate if you don't even know where you *are?* And it's hard to imagine a more awkward circumstance under which one could get oneself splinched, isn't it? -- Elkins (who thinks that Avery probably took the train) From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Thu Jun 6 17:02:44 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 17:02:44 -0000 Subject: Apparate or Die Trying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39467 Elkins wrote: > We never see anyone save Dobby (who as an Elf has special magical > powers and therefore is not bothered by shields and such) apparate in > or out of a house. (Percy does so *inside* the Burrow, but > apparating down the stairs does not involve crossing the boundaries > of the house itself.) Not having the books, I'm not absolutely sure, but doesn't Arthur Weasley apparate from work to his kitchen in COS? IIRC we don't *see* it, and he could have apparated to the back door and unlocked it ('Alohamolly'), but I read it as apparating to the biscuit tin in the larder. In GOF though I think he does go out the front door. In response to Cindy's challenge, no, I think apparating is the worst, but Veritaserum and Accio are pretty bad too. David From cindysphynx at comcast.net Thu Jun 6 17:03:13 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 17:03:13 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Neville and Foreshadowing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39468 Cindy reclines on the tropical beach of Theory Bay, her Barcolounger slung low in the sand. She holds a large mirror under her chin, working diligently on the kind of tan that the Captain of any vessel must maintain to be taken seriously in the Bay. After many long hours, her skin takes on a weather-beaten, leathery appearance. Cindy surveys her face in the mirror and nods with approval. Suddenly, something blocks out the sun. Towering over her is a curious and rather moist British man, dapper in a woolen pin-stripe suit for a casual stroll on the beach. He loosens his tie and begins speaking into what appears to be an oversized paddle. Cindy blinks, hard. She must remember to come in from the sun before she becomes quite so dehydrated. The man beckons her to rise from her chair and thrusts the paddle at her. She can hear a whiny, rather squeaky female voice coming from the paddle. Cindy raises the hilt to her ear and concentrates hard. @------((() @------((() @------((() @------((() @------((() Faith is nattering on again. This time, she is taking issue with an idea that is at the very foundation of the outlandish speculation in Theory Bay -- That Everything In HP Happens For A Reason. This is a very important point, after all. Without this principle, all canon mysteries really can only be addressed with a shrug that says, "Why are you asking me? Ask JKR!" There is reason to believe that this is exactly what Faith *wants*! That simply won't do. The denizens of Theory Bay cannot survive on a basic diet of quarrelling about Hermione's birthday. They need Real speculation, something to sink their teeth into, something worth fighting over, and Faith is seriously getting in the way. "We need *some* background that is purely background," Faith cries hysterically, her voice mysteriously amplified as it blasts from the paddle. "At least *one* Hogwarts pet could do with being just a pet. At least one Hogwarts professor should turn out to be a career teacher with nothing more on their mind than pedagogic proficiency." Cindy glares at the British man, who shrugs helplessly. "Listen, Faith," Cindy snarls, her parched lips scraping the paddle. "We've been over this before. There is a Big difference between background that is just background and background that is foreshadowing. JKR will sometimes decorate scenes with magical knickknacks that are unimportant. In fact, I can't even think of a knickknack in canon that has turned out to be a significant part of a Big plot twist. Oh, sure. Magical objects might pay a small role as part of a larger effort at foreshadowing. Harry's noticing the Grim on the cover of a schoolbook is one example. Odd things *abound* in the wizarding world. I mean, it's the *wizarding world*, after all. "But when *characters themselves* display some odd trait that is drummed into the reader, JKR is setting up something Big. Moody drinking from a hip flask. Lupin's repeated illnesses. Pettigrew's longevity. Quirrell's turban. And, I submit, Neville's forgetfulness. This isn't just window-dressing. JKR is *always* going somewhere when she bothers to make her characters quirky." Cindy waited, drumming her fingers impatiently on the shaft of the paddle. Faith is speechless. A nice change, Cindy thought. Cindy presses her advantage. "So, tell me, Little Miss Whippersnapper. Can you think of a major plot twist that has hinged on some minor little object, some cute piece of set design, some unimportant possession of one of the characters? You know, "Monster Book of Monsters", Rememberall, Omnioculars? Anything, anything at all?" Cindy waits, listening to a strange blank buzzing coming from the paddle as Faith concentrates on this question. "Didn't think so," Cindy says sarcastically. She shoves the paddle back into the man's hands, which shake slightly as he lifts it to his shoulder. "I know you're new around these parts, but can I make a very small suggestion?" The man nods slowly. "Remember that inflatable raft I gave you a while back?," Cindy asks. "Well, between you and me, no one has boarded it, and half of the air has already leaked out. You *have* to take care of your vessel around here." Her eyes flick to the neglected hovercraft, which now houses a large family of beavers. She shudders imperceptibly. "Look, that raft will sink like a stone if you don't keep plenty of air in it. You do know how to keep it inflated, don't you?" The man stares at her with vacant eyes. Cindy sighs heavily, shaking her head. "Just put your lips together and blow." ************ Cindy *************** For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin20Files/hypoth eticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From alina at distantplace.net Thu Jun 6 17:10:21 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:10:21 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry and the riddle of Riddle References: Message-ID: <009901c20d7d$0b25e0a0$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39469 ----- Original Message ----- From: alhewison "Probably the only two Parselmouths to come to Hogwarts since the great Slytherin himself" reply: You gotta remember, that not all british wizards/witches necessarily go to Hogwarts. Draco's father wanted to send him to Durmstrang, didn't he? Which implies that people actually have some choice over what school they go to. Being a parselmouth is considered a dark gift, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that a few british parselmouths actually went to a school other than Hogwarts, maybe even Durmstrang itself. Briana NightOwl http://briana.distantplace.net "You bleed just to know you're alive" - Goo Goo Dolls --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.368 / Virus Database: 204 - Release Date: 30/05/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Jun 6 17:09:21 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 17:09:21 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Minerva McGonagall Is Ever So Evil! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39470 Elkins was out for a little walk in the forest when she noticed Cindy standing just a few yards off the path, staring contemplatively up into the highest branches of some nearby trees. Cindy was musing: > That means that *someone* has to betray Dumbledore, and that > someone must have Dumbledore's trust (so that they can get the drop > on him) and must be capable of killing him. . . .The only person > who can bring down Dumbledore is someone who has his trust and uses > that trust to stab him in the back. > So who does Dumbledore trust enough to let his guard down? It's a > fairly short list, I think... Always up for a spot of hedgehog-watching herself, Elkins threw her head back and began scanning the tops of the trees. She thought that she could see a faint mammalian shape up there somewhere, but without her omnioculors, she couldn't be certain precisely who it might be. So she listened in silence while Cindy considered the merits of Snape, and of Moody, and of McGonagall, and of Hagrid, and of Sirius, and of Remus, and of... Elkins frowned. Hold on. There was something odd about that shape up there, wasn't there? Something... She blinked. The hedgehog in the high tree above her was smiling. Grinning, really. And it didn't even look all that much like a hedgehog anymore, come to think of it. It was beginning to look more like...like... As Elkins watched, the hedgehog-that-did-not-much-resemble-a-hedgehog slowly faded from view. Only its smile remained behind. "Cindy," Elkins said softly. "Cindy? Uh, could you go back to Number Three again for just a minute please?" --------------- Cindy: > 3. McGonagall. Uh, no. She couldn't even ward off Crouch Jr.'s > dementor. Well, really, Cindy! She wouldn't have *wanted* to ward off Crouch Jr.'s dementor if she was a follower of Voldemort's, now, would she? You think that little Barty "Oh, how I hate all those Death Eaters who walked free" Crouch wouldn't have ratted her out to the Ministry, given half a chance? You think that little Barty "No, Daddy, please save me, I just can't stand all of these scary dementors" Crouch wouldn't have tried to offer the ministry a little deal, if he thought that it might cut back his prison sentence by a year or two? You think that McGonagall was willing to take the chance that the next time someone loaded little Barty up with a mouthful of veritaserum, they wouldn't think to ask him anything about *her?* Hah! If you ask me, the happiest moment in Minerva McGonagall's *life* was the moment that she first realized that Fudge's Dementor was going in for the Kiss. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if she stumbled right *into* Snape, just to make sure that he wouldn't have time to do anything to stop what was about to happen. Even if Snape did suspect that she'd done it on purpose, he'd never be able to convince Dumbledore of that fact. Not after that amazing impersonation of Flustered Woman Who Can't Keep Her Head In A Crisis that McGonagall pulled off, with all of her shrieking and trembling and flushing and fist-balling and disarrayed hair and the like. "Ward off Crouch Jr's dementor." Yeah. Like McGonagall would really have wanted to do *that.* Boy. You know, I'd figured that ever since Porphyria's j'accuse a few weeks ago, we'd all just accepted as a matter of general *consensus* that Minerva McGonagall Was Ever So Evil. But clearly I was wrong about that. So let's just take a look at all of the canonical evidence stacked up against dear Minerva, shall we? Porphyria listed a number of suspicious things about McGonagall in message #38783: > Is McGonagall Ever so Evil? Is that why she goes around wearing > Slytherin colors all the time, even though Snape himself rarely > bothers? Is that why she didn't warn Dumbledore in PS/SS after > Harry accosted her, convinced the Stone was in jeopardy? I bet she > finagled to buy him that Firebolt to get him on the Quidditch team > early so that Quirrell would have his shot at jinxing him off of > it. Yeah, she was in league with Q-man all along! And she really > wants Trelawney discredited, doesn't she? Maybe it's to keep people > from believing her *next* true prediction! > Oh, yeah, I'm onto her. She's the one who can turn into a cat and > creep around the school late at night. Spying on Harry, no doubt. > Wait -- didn't she go to school with Tom Riddle? Maybe they were > lovers! Hang on: she's tall and thin and has black hair, just like > Tom -- maybe they're cousins! Or for those of you who like it > juicy, maybe they were both. >:-D All of which is certainly compelling enough. For *starters.* Because you see, there's more evidence than just that. There's a *lot* more evidence. For one thing, there's her behavior right after the third task. Crouch Jr. wasn't the only person at Hogwarts who seemed terribly keen to lure Harry out of sight of Albus Dumbledore that night, you know. McGonagall gave it a shot as well. In fact, she tried to get Harry away from Dumbledore the instant that Crouch/Moody had been taken out of the action. She, Snape and Dumbledore barge into Fake!Moody's office. Fake!Moody is stupefied. Dumbledore kicks him onto his back and starts pulling his scary "the gloves are coming off now" Do Not Anger The Powerful Wizard routine. Snape stares intriguingly at himself in the Foe-Glass. And what does McGonagall do? >From _GoF, Ch. 35: "Professor McGonagall went straight to Harry. 'Come along, Potter,' she whispered. The thin line of her mouth was twitching as though she was about to cry. 'Come along...hospital wing...' 'No,' said Dumbledore sharply. 'Dumbledore, he ought to -- look at him -- he's been through enough tonight--' 'He will stay, Minerva, because he needs to understand,' said Dumbledore curtly." Oh well. At least she gave it her best shot, right? She looks as if she's about to cry, eh? Yeah, no kidding. I'd look as if I were about to cry too, I think, if I'd just had the sort of terrible disappointment that Evil!McGonagall just suffered in that graveyard, and if Dumbledore wasn't going to allow me to curry my Dark Master's favor by delivering Harry up to him myself, and if on top of all of that, my idiot colleague was likely to be ratting me out to all of my enemies in a matter of only a few minutes. If she looks as if she's about to cry when Crouch is thwarted, though, that's nothing compared to how she looks after they feed him the veritaserum. She looks positively *sick* when that happens. And really, who can blame her? Boy, though, what a relief when Dumbledore asked *her,* rather than, say, Snape, to be the one to stand guard over Crouch, eh? >From _GoF,_ Ch. 36: "'Minerva, could I ask you to stand guard here while I take Harry upstairs?' 'Of course,' said Professor McGonagall. She looked slighty nauseous, as though she had just watched someone being sick. However, when she drew out her wand and pointed it at Barty Crouch, her hand was quite steady." I'll bet it was. I'm telling you, Fudge's showing up with that Dementor was the best thing that ever happened to McGonagall. She'd been standing there over Crouch racking her brains to try to think of some way to ensure his silence that wouldn't cast suspicion right back on her -- should she claim that he had tried to escape, perhaps? No, no, Severus would see right through that one. Well, okay, a memory charm perhaps? -- and then along came Fudge with his Dementor and solved all of her problems for her. What a relief! But a bad moment there for a minute as well, I'm sure. As a general rule, I don't think that secret DEs feel at all comfortable with Dementors. In fact, she's in quite the state when she tells Dumbledore about what happened, isn't she? You think that's fury? That's not fury. That's terror comingled with profound relief. That's a post- adrenaline rush "there but for the grace of God went I" moment, which she then Ever So Cleverly exploits to lend credence to her whole Flustered Woman act. Still not convinced that Minerva McGonagall Is Ever So Evil? No? Not even after all of that? Well, okay. How about we look at her appearance in the very first chapter of the very first book then? First off, McGonagall's very appearance on Privet Drive that morning is *highly* suspicious. Just what precisely is she doing there, anyway? She implies that she has been waiting there for Dumbledore -- and yet she keeps herself hidden from him, only revealing herself once he makes it clear that he knows perfectly well that she is there. She claims that Hagrid was the one who told her that he would be there -- but only after Dumbledore himself first suggests that possibility to her, and she changes the subject very quickly thereafter. She waits outside of the house on Privet Drive *all day long,* even though it seems clear that Hagrid and Dumbledore had prearranged to meet there only after nightfall. Wouldn't Hagrid have mentioned that fact to her, if he had really been the one to tell her that she could find Dumbledore at 4 Privet Drive? And when Hagrid finally shows up, he says absolutely nothing which supports her claim that she had spoken to him earlier that day. No "Oh, Professor McGonagall, found the place all right, then?" Nothing like that. And when precisely would McGonagall have spoken to Hagrid, anyway? It wasn't at Godric's Hollow. She is surprised to learn that Hagrid has been entrusted with the infant Harry. It couldn't have been after Godric's Hollow for the same reason. Also, she arrived at Privet Drive early enough in the day for Vernon Dursley to see her on his way to work that morning. And if it were *before* Godric's Hollow, then why on earth wouldn't she have spoken to Dumbledore earlier that day? She is addressed as "Professor," so presumably she already works at Hogwarts. Couldn't she have spoken to him there, or sought him out wherever he spent the rest of the day, rather than hanging some miserable suburb all day long just to wait to talk to him? No. I think that she's lying. I don't believe that she came to Privet Drive because Hagrid told her that she could find Albus Dumbledore there. In fact, I don't believe that she came to Privet Drive to speak with Dumbledore at all. For one thing, just witness her response when Dumbledore first arrives: "A man appeared on the corner the cat had been watching, appeared so suddenly and silently you'd have thought he'd just popped out of the ground. The cat's tail twitched and its eyes narrowed." Now, I have two cats. And I have to tell you: tail-twitching and eye- narrowing is absolutely *not* how cats express pleasure at seeing someone they have been waiting all day to have a nice chat with. When cats twitch their tails and narrow their eyes, that is an expression of aggression, anxiety, or predatory intent. It is not friendly cat behavior. In fact, given that this particular cat is actually a witch in cat form, I would go so far as to say that she reacts to Dumbledore's appearance with outright *hatred.* And what does she do then? Does she resume her human form so that she can speak with this man she has supposedly been waiting for all day long? Does she greet him, as one might expect? No. She does not. She lurks in the shadows, watching him carefully. She does not reveal herself to him until he leaves her no other choice: "Dumbledore slipped the Put-Outer back inside his cloak and set off down the street towards number four, where he sat down on the wall next to the cat. He didn't look at it, but after a moment he spoke to it. 'Fancy seeing you here, Professor McGonagall.' He turned to smile at the tabby, but it had gone. Instead he was smiling at a rather severe-looking woman who was wearing square glasses exactly in the shape of the markings the cat had had around its eyes. She, too, was wearing a cloak, an emerald one. Her black hair was drawn into a tight bun. She looked distinctly ruffled. 'How did you know it was me?' she asked." Note the Slytherin green outfit. Note also that McGonagall is apparently surprised to learn that Dumbledore can recognize her in her animagus form. But the specific forms of registered animagi are a matter of public record! Hermione looks them up in _PoA._ So are we meant to understand that McGonagall was not, in fact, even *registered* at this point in time? Was her animaga status her own little secret? Does McGonagall have a criminal past? Nearly the entire wizarding world has been celebrating Voldemort's downfall all day long. People are ecstatic about what has happened. But McGonagall isn't. She is *furious,* although she tries to mask her fury as irritation with the celebrants' lack of prudence: "'When could you have been celebrating? I must have passed a dozen feasts and parties on my way here.' Professor McGonagall sniffed angrily. 'Oh yes, everyone's celebrating all right,' she said impatiently." "Angrily." Yeah, I'll bet she's angry. McGonagall is disdainful to the point of contempt when it comes to Muggles: "'You'd think they'd be a bit more careful, but no -- even the Muggles have noticed something's going on. It was on their news.' She jerked her head back at the Dursleys' dark living-room window. 'I heard it. Flocks of owls...shooting stars...Well, they're not completely stupid.'" Her agenda once she is speaking to Dumbledore is to pump him for information about Voldemort's rumored fall. She seems particularly desperate to learn whether it is really true that Voldemort has been vanquished: "'People are being downright careless, out on the streets in broad daylight, not even dressed in Muggle clothes, swapping rumours.' She threw a sharp, sideways glance at Dumbledore here, as though hoping he was going to tell her something, but he didn't, so she went on: 'A fine thing it would be if, on the very day You-Know-WHo seems to have disappeared at last, the Muggles found out about us all. I suppose he really *has* gone, Dumbledore?'" Dumbledore tries to put her off again and again, but McGonagall is not to be dissuaded by any of his diversionary tactics. She loftily ignores his attempt to distract her with sherbet lemons and immediately returns to her interrogation ("As I say, even if You-Know- Who *has* gone--"). She also refuses to allow herself to be side- tracked into a conversation about the value of referring to Voldemort by name, although she *does* flinch when Dumbledore speaks it aloud -- just exactly as Pettigrew will later do at the sound of his master's name in the Shrieking Shack. Although it is perfectly obvious that McGonagall's interest in this conversation lies in her burning desire to know whether or not Voldemort has truly been defeated -- and if so, if it was truly Harry Potter who was responsible -- the narrative voice chooses to make this fact *explicit* -- just in case the reader somehow missed it: "Professor McGonagall shot a sharp look at Dumbledore and said, 'The owls are nothing to the *rumours* that are flying around. You know what everyone's saying? About why he's disappeared? About what finally stopped him?' It seemed that Professor McGonagall had reached the point she was most anxious to discuss, the real reason she had been waiting on a cold hard wall all day, for neither as a cat nor as a woman had she fixed Dumbledore with such a piercing stare as she did now." Boy. Jo sure didn't want us to miss that, huh? It's *important* to the author that the reader understand how very anxious McGonagall is to learn the truth of this matter, as well as to note that she goes about trying to get this information out of Dumbledore in an oddly indirect fashion. It is absolutely essential that the reader understand this. Although she affects shock and grief when she learns that the Potters are dead, McGonagall's voice only actually begins to *tremble* when she approaches the possibility that voldemort may truly have been unable to kill Harry, and that his powers have now been broken. It is only when she gains confirmation of this fact that she actually "falters:" "'It's--it's *true?*' faltered Professor McGonagall. 'After all he's done...all the people he's killed...he couldn't kill a little boy? It's just astounding...of all the things to stop him...but how in the name of heaven did Harry survive?'" Notice how quickly she corrects herself from her initial estimation of Voldemort's power ("after all he's done") to one more in keeping with a position of emnity towards Voldemort's cause ("all the people he's killed"). It is only after she is assured that indeed, it is true that Voldemort is gone that McGonagall actually begins to weep. Oh, no. I don't trust that Minerva McGonagall. I do not trust her at all. There are also strange off-notes in McGonagall's characterization in this scene. Nowhere else in canon does McGonagall fawn. She is not the sycophantic type. But she certainly does fawn all over Albus Dumbledore in this scene. It's actually quite disgusting: "'Everyone knows you're the only one You-Know -- oh, all right, *Voldemort* -- was frightened of.'" 'You flatter me,' said Dumbledore calmly. 'Voldemort had powers I will never have.' 'Only because you're too -- well -- *noble* to use them.'" Oh, ick. "Oh, Albus. You're so *noble!*" Blech. Ugh. It does seem grotesquely out of character for the ordinarily brisk and sensible McGonagall, doesn't it? For her to start *simpering* like that? But of course, she may have very good reasons for wanting to suck up to old Albus here. Voldemort's gone, and his Death Eaters have probably already started turning themselves in to the Ministry in droves, claiming that they've been under the Imperius Curse. McGonagall's got to be getting pretty nervous right about now. And as we've seen with Snape, Dumbledore makes a very powerful protector. I also find myself wondering about all of that "too noble to use all the powers at your disposal" stuff. Just how long has McGonagall been feeding Dumbledore that line, anyway? From the very start, perhaps? Might that not in fact have been one of her *jobs?* To try to ensure that no matter how ugly the conflict might become, Dumbledore would continue to place limits on his own actions? To try to subvert and weaken the enemy? And you think that *Snape* is the likely Big Shock Betrayer of this series? Nah. Snape betraying Dumbledore wouldn't be a shocker. McGonagall, though? Now, wouldn't that be something. Not Dumbledore's left-hand, but his right-hand. Not the head of House Slytherin, but the head of House Gryffindor. Not the Designated Red Herring, but instead the very first member of the wizarding world that the reader ever *met?* Now *that* would be a shocker. *That* would be betrayal. And not just for Dumbledore himself, but for everyone: Harry, Snape, all of House Gryffindor. And particularly for Hermione, of course. Hermione, who has that protege/mentor thing going with our dear Minerva. Yup. Yup. Minerva McGonagall. Foreshadowed As Ever So Evil From The Very First Chapter Of The Very First Book. -- Elkins, who will happily exchange her SUCCESS: the Dumbledore Variation for a whomping big glass of SUCCESS: the McGonagall Variation; and who also wonders whether she has earned an honorary membership in the OHF for firing so very many big canons up into the tree-tops, even if she was aiming them at Porphyria's hedgehog. From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu Jun 6 17:09:30 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 17:09:30 -0000 Subject: I Was Easily Annihilated (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39471 I Was Easily Annihilated (from GoF, Ch. 33) (To the tune of I Am Easily Assimilated from Leonard Bernstein's Candide) Dedicated to Suzanne Chiles Hear a 30-second clip of the original at: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000003GA7/ref=pd_sim_music/103 -2503752-4541420 THE SCENE: The graveyard at Little Hangleton. LUCIUS addresses the resurrected VOLDEMORT. LUCIUS (spoken): Master, we crave to know ... we beg you to tell us ... how you have achieved this . . . this miracle . . . how you managed to return to us. .. . VOLDEMORT: Ah, what a story it is, Lucius. And it begins - and ends - with my young friend here .. (music, tempo di tango) I was born to be highly immoral The Potters died as I simply chortled But one curse more, it's a sudden shortfall! Di dee di! I nearly died! I was easily annihilated I was so easily annihilated. My goal was to never kick the bucket I cursed the boy and bad luck, I struck it My body, I was then forced to chuck it Waves of pain! There goes my reign! I was easily annihilated I was so easily annihilated. It's silly, that foolish girl Lily Her magic, her so-ancient magic She turned me to total toast Less than the meanest ghost I could not use my wand Servants would not respond CHORUS OF DEATH EATERS Feeling a tad sick You headed for the Adriatic A snake, a flea, a bumblebee A wee mousy Were what you had to be. VOLDEMORT I fought to exist From moment to moment to subsist CHORUS Adieu, taboo You-Know-Who, Aurors pursue Your crew flew the coup. VOLDEMORT I waited to achieve my comeback But you guys, you proved to be bum hacks VOLDEMORT & CHORUS Then Quirrell came by The brains of a squirrel had that guy `Twas so Keystone, his cover blown, I/You lost the Stone And I/you was/were sent Home Alone CHORUS Tell Quirrell "bye-bye". Bye-bye! Bye-bye! Hey! Orchestral interlude ? VOLDEMORT and DEATH EATERS vigorously tango around the tomb of Tom Riddle VOLDEMORT It seemed I would be termed a failure But suddenly, in comes Wormtail, ya .. VOLDEMORT & CHORUS (to Wormtail) Provided the clue You captured Bertha Jorkins who knew All that was up with the Cup We caught that pup And now we Death Eaters will sup! So, Harry, thank you! VOLDEMORT & CHORUS all their arms toward Tom Riddle's tomb Thank you! Thank you! Hey! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Thu Jun 6 17:32:00 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 17:32:00 -0000 Subject: Proof of Hermione's age Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39472 If Hermione was really 14 when Dubledore made his statement about thirteen-year-old wizards, she would have said, "But Professor, I'm 14." Once a swot, always a swot. :) Marcus P.S.: No it is not proof. I am being facetious. Marcus From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Thu Jun 6 17:46:39 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 17:46:39 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Stoned!Harry Voldemort's Relative?/Green Symbolism Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39473 Caroline grabs Stoned Harry's hand and pulls him off to a private spot on the deck of the Big Bang destroyer. "Harry," she says, "a lot of people seem to think you might be related to Voldemort." Harry looks confused. "But I hate Voldemort," he says. "Of course you do, Harry," Caroline says comfortingly. "But, well, I have to say it is a bit possible." Stoned Harry looks shocked. "Remember back in message 38542, when we discussed all the symbolism that makes you Stoned? Well, further exploration of that symbolism can point to you being related to Voldemort on your mother's side." Harry gets up a bit unsteadily, ready to wander away. "Come back, Harry, and hear me out," Caroline pleads. "This isn't required dogma, by any means. You can be Stoned without it. But it sure would be Bangy." Harry settles down to listen, humming to himself. "Now, we agreed that your mother represented the mercury in the alchemical equation for developing a philosopher's stone. One symbol relating both to mercury and your mother is the unicorn, a symbol of purity, just like the lily and willow tree." Stoned Harry nods, liking this part. "Another is the color green, like the pretty eyes you both share." Harry likes this too. Caroline hopes he will still like it when she explores some of the negative symbolism surrounding the color green. "Another is, well it's the serpent. Mercury, you see, is represented by the Caduceus, a wand entwined with two snakes." Stoned Harry mumbles something that sounds like, "Slytherin." "Yes," Caroline agrees. "The serpent often symbolizes water, because... well, there are fourteen pages explaining that in my book, so you might just want to take my word for it. And, well, mercury is often symbolized by water. And the color green is often considered a symbol for water." "Too many symbols," groans Stoned Harry, clutching his head. "I know," Caroline agrees, "but I do think She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named put them there for a reason. And I think there's a good chance your mum's related to Voldemort. Perhaps his niece or great-niece on his mother's side." "Now," Caroline says briskly, "let's talk about the color green, shall we? It really is a *terribly* interesting color. First, it is the color of humanity. And it is, according to my book, `set midway between the inaccessible absolutes of the Blue of Heaven and the Red of Hell.'" "Blue Dumbledore's eyes," Stoned Harry mutters. "Red Voldemort's." "Exactly," Caroline beams. "Green is also the color of the awakening of life, of spring, and of regeneration. Medieval artists often painted Christ's Cross green as it was a symbol of regenerative sacrifice." "That sounds like Mum," Harry mutters. "And me, if Cindy's right about the decapitation and the catwalk over lava." "But," Caroline adds hesitantly, "the color green does have some dark symbolism as well. It is the color of sickness, decay, and death. The emerald was the jewel of Lucifer before he fell from heaven. Medieval artists often depicted Satan as green too." "Slytherin's color is green," Harry says unhappily. "And so is the killing curse, and the basilisk was, too." "Now repeat with me, Harry: *It is our choices that make us what we are, rather than our abilities.* Green as a color just sort of sums that up, doesn't it? It can go either way. I wonder what color Tom Riddle's eyes were before he went all evil. You didn't mention that when you met him in CoS, just that they began to gleam red at one point." "I was *busy* at the time, OK? Harry snaps. "He kind of looked like my dad and me, though." "Honestly, Harry!" Caroline says reproachfully. "Don't you know a red herring when you see one?" "And," Caroline continues, "the serpent can go either way as well. That's a chat for another day, but one reason there are fourteen pages about serpents in my book is that it has a dual symbolism too. Good and evil. Death and life." "Then there's the alchemists again," Caroline says. "They believed that the Elixir of Life was actually housed in a vessel made from a cut emerald. And they had some interesting ideas about the power of green light. That it could pierce all secrets, and kill or heal depending on how it was wielded." Stoned Harry looks at the bar longingly. "I'm almost done, Harry," Caroline says reassuringly. "Just one more quote, about the emerald. It was `universally regarded as a powerful talisman. Although hell-born, it could turn itself against the inhabitants of the infernal regions, whose secrets it knew.'" "Can I get a drink now?" Harry asks abruptly. "Sure, Harry. Bring me one too. This research stuff is tiring." *********** Caroline (Who thinks that if Harry ends up being an heir of Gryffindor, he better be one of Slytherin too, or the choices-rather-than-abilities thing is meaningless) *********** Citation: The Penguin Dictionary of Symbols, pub. 1994 From birdy739 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 6 18:01:34 2002 From: birdy739 at hotmail.com (Kelly Shiflet) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 14:01:34 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione's age - why it matters was Canon disagreement; author intent Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39474 Okay, not to get off track, but last summer I took a trip to London and bought all four Harry Potter British versions, now stick with me on this. I'm just now getting around to reading them, and this morning I was reading POA (still with me) now I can't qoute the exact page, because my internet is down and I'm currently at the library (which saddly doesn't have POA in at the current moment) ANYWAYS, It was after Harry had blown up Aunt Marge and goes through his little adventure, and ends up staying with Tom the Innkeeper. On the second to last day before heading off to the Hogwarts Express, Harry finally meets up with Ron & Hermione. They buy all there stuff AND: (HERE"S THE CLENCHER) HERMIONE SAYS THAT SHE HAS A LITTLE MONEY LEFT OVER AND WOULD LIKE TO TREAT HERSELF TO AN EARLY BIRTHDAY PRESENT ---WHICH IS IN SEPTEMBER--- and they go off to buy her an owl, but she buys Crookshanks instead, remember? She was the one that said her Birthday is in September, maybe someone who is more dedicated than I am, and never let's their HP books out of their sight, could go and look up the page that Hermione says that. Hope I Helped, Kelly >From: "hp_lexicon" >Reply-To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com >To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com >Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione's age - why it matters was Canon >disagreement; author intent >Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 13:38:03 -0000 > >--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" wrote: > > > I was so adamant that I was right about my interpretation, that I > > dared to challenge "Steve of the Lexicon" offlist - only to >presented > > with the only piece of canon on the matter. From memory this was > > Dumbledore calling Harry and Hermione "13 Year old wizards" at the > > end of POA - implying that Hermione must have her birthday after > > Harry. Of course, being stubborn I think that JKR simply over- > > generalised here, and Hermione MUST be older than Harry. > >Alright, enough of this treating me like I'm somehow different than >everyone else. I don't have any sort of inside track here on what's >canon and what isn't or what's more right. I'm just some guy. My >opinion doesn't count for more than anyone else's. > >But I do have rules for my own site, and those rules are that when >all else fails, I go with what's in the book. Personally, I think >that Hermione might very well be older than Harry. But until actual >evidence crops up to prove it one way or another, I just go with >what the book says. I realize that what the books says can be >interpreted as a generalization on Dumbledore's part, but that's >what he said and there's nothing else to prove otherwise. Our >(probably true) assumptions that JKR is following the British system >for her school is not proof on the same level of a statement in the >book, even if that statement is problematic. > >And please, before anyone says that I'm making some sort of >arbitrary rule about which shaky evidence is more correct, note that >I said that I only make such rules for my website. I have to have >those kinds of rules in order to do my work. I don't care a fig >about what sort of rules everyone else wants to use. And I don't >expect everyone to use my rules. > >Also, you will note on the Lexicon that I include a paragraph >explaining why I went with the date that I did and giving the >alternate point of view. In fact, if someone wants to write a nice >concise analysis of the arguments pro and con, I would consider >publishing it. I hvae email all the time from people begging me to >publish more essays. > >I am not some sort of "canon policeman" and I don't make canon rules >for fandom. I'm just a lowly librarian who is more than ready for >summer vacation to start (in two days and counting...praise the Lord) > >Steve > >ps I've added a few things to the Lexicon, and coming soon is an >absolutely incredible calendar of GoF by AmyZ which will knock your >socks off! > _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From LysaK99 at cs.com Thu Jun 6 17:04:54 2002 From: LysaK99 at cs.com (LysaK99 at cs.com) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:04:54 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry and the riddle of Riddle/Apparate or Die Trying Message-ID: <5f.287c99cc.2a30f036@cs.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39475 In a message dated 6/6/02 5:54:58 AM Mountain Daylight Time, Edblanning at aol.com writes: > That would be entirely consistent with Dobby's method of communicating. Yes, > the connection should be on his father's side. I am convinced he cannot be > Voldemort's grandson, as that directly contradicts what Dumbledore says > about > Voldemort being Slytherin's last remaining descendent. Assuming that he > knows. After all, he isn't *really* omniscient. How can he possibly know? > Ah, but what about the sorting hat wanting to put Harry into Slytherin, saying,"Its all right here in your head..." or words to that effect. Where did it come from? I am not sure about the Voldie as Harry's grampa, but there has to be special signifigance, a special connection somehow. I am not sure that Riddle is old enough to be harry's grandfather, but uncle perhaps. I am definately anxious to find out! Lysa From aiz24 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 6 18:24:17 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 14:24:17 -0400 Subject: Lupin: Is he or isn't he? (was More on- Lupin is NOT, etc.) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39476 Pippin wrote: >Lupin is ever so evil. I've been asked when I'm going to weigh in on this thread. *scratches head* I'm not sure why. Anyhoo... I really have nothing to say, except that it's inspired a new and healthy suspicion of characters I formerly trusted. No more! -Dobby. It is SO obvious he's in league with Malfoy Sr. Their double act is pathetically unconvincing. Is there an older trick in the book than this?: Bad Guy #1 pretends to be sick of his association with Bad Guy #2, tells hero so, along with pitiful tales of his mistreatment at the hands of Bad Guy #2. Hero swallows it hook, line, and sinker, especially when right in front of him they have their apparently final falling-out. Only a 12-year-old who'd grown up in a cupboard would fail to recognize the pattern. Clearly, Malfoy, L turns to another plot in PA (the whole Buckbeak thing) and his move in GF is to send Dobby to Hogwarts. What's the first thing Dobby does? Hug Harry. Doesn't it seem just a little odd? Just a bit forward, even uncharacteristic? He is planting a wizarding sensor over Harry's left kidney for his still-partner to track. Mark my words, LM will find Harry in Privet Drive in Book 5, chapter 2. -Flitwick. The only person we know of who understands the Fidelius Charm. He cast it and he made sure it would fail. Responsible for the whole disaster. -Lily. Look, we know the whole sacrificed-herself-to-coat-Harry-with-magical-Teflon thing just doesn't wash. What *really* happened that night? How do we even know she's dead? We know Voldemort doesn't want to kill her. Why not, hm? Maybe Lily was playing her own dangerous game with the World's Most Powerful Wizard, letting him bump off inconvenient hubby James in the next room before cutting her deal . . . it just reeks of Double Indemnity. -McGonagall. (I wrote all this and then Elkins's post popped up. But I can't bear to ditch it, so add these weak little tidbits to Elkins's 44K.) She is supposed to be in loco parentis for Harry, and supposedly for the love of Quidditch keeps letting him do incredibly dangerous things. Sounds like a clever front to me. Does she strike you as a true sports fan? No, she just thinks it's an A-1 way to get rid of this nuisance (whom she wanted to get rid of back when he was 15 months old, but Dumbledore *would* insist on this Muggle-relative plan and all her hopes of taking care of little Harry herself were foiled). She's also primed for an offer from Voldemort after 40-odd years as deputy headmistress under a headmaster who *will not die.* She must feel like Prince Charles by now. Her best years are slipping away while that doddering old idiot plays at being Head, while she could be doing such useful things . . . I bet she'd be very vulnerable to a whisper in the ear. "Deliver that bratty little Potter kid and the Headship is yours..." If you doubt me, ask yourself this: Who obstructs Harry's attempts to get to the Stone? Don't say Snape. All he does is meet them in the Entrance Hall and say something Slytherinish about how they ought to be outside lest someone think they're up to something. But McGonagall not only instructs them in no uncertain terms to stop pursuing this whole Philosopher's Stone thing, she then *comes to find them* at the entrance to the third-floor corridor. What is she doing there? Nothing good. Etc. etc. After my HP service, a parishioner came up to me and said very seriously: "Here's my prediction. Book Six: You Know Who and Dumbledore turn out to be the same person." No one is immune! Amy Z off to work on a Harry is Ever So Evil theory _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Jun 6 18:27:09 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 18:27:09 -0000 Subject: Basilisk Attacks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39477 Carrie-Ann wrote: > Hello All! I thought I'd revisit CoS for a minute... I'm listening > to the audio now. I was wondering about how the basilisk actually > attacks people. I mean I know that it travels through the pipes, but > the attacks are mostly in the hallways. How does the basilisk get > into the hallway? I was thinking maybe water fountains or some such > thing, but I'm not sure that explains everything. It's supposed to come out through Mirtle's bathroom, through the secret door in the sink (you have to wonder how long have those sinks been there, since it's strange that modern piping was installed in the times the school first opened, but maybe the wizards just remembered the roman technology...). There may be more ways to get out from the pipes, but the fact that it has to go all the way up sort of implies the only way out is that bathroom (remember the first attack is directly outside it: Filch's cat) > If this has already > been discussed at length, I'm sorry for bringing it up again. It has > just been bugging me. To my knowledge, it hasn't been discussed recently, but then again, I may look like an established member of HP4GU, but I haven't been here so long, really, and CS has been out a LONG time. > Also, how are the > attcks targeted? Does anyone have any ideas? The attacks were targeted, presumably, by Ginny herself, when possesed by Riddle's memory of the diary. When in that situation, Ginny could speak parseltongue, and come in and out of the chamber of secrets with ease. > Also, when Harry hears the voice of the basilisk, it is saying that > it is hungry, and that it wants to rip, etc (sorry, I don't have my > book with me to reference). Why doesn't it feed on the petrified > victims? I know that's pretty gross, but why not? Because, fortunately, it's being tightly controled by Riddle!Ginny. Basilisks are not the sort of creatures you want to let out of your sight (which is a problem, since you don't want to be in *their* sight either :-) ). Riddle was looking for a general panic, but keeping it low key, or the school would have been emptied inmediately, which wasn't part of his plan (he wanted to infuse Harry, not scare everyone away). > Also, Seeing as how the entrance to the chamber is in Myrtle's > bathroom, why doesn't she know more about what's going on? I know > that she wasn't there on Halloween, but what about the other times it > was opened? Most of the time she spends in her bathroom she's probably crying loudly inside her private bathroom, where she doesn't hear or see anything and (even though it's in front of the secret entrance), she probably doesn't enjoy looking at it very much, so she probably keeps the door closed. Remember, too, that she spends quite a lot of time roaming the school (when she's not being flushed into the lake, she's peeking at the prefects in the bathroom). On the other hand, maybe she *does* know about what's going on, but her personality is keeping it tight inside her, and since nobody asks... > Just a few thoughts that have been nagging at me. > > Carrie-Ann (who really should get back to work...) Hope that helps, Grey Wolf (who *is* getting back to work) From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Thu Jun 6 18:28:17 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 18:28:17 -0000 Subject: Unanswered questions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39478 (1) Why didn't anybody receive a Howler during Harry's first year? Harry was unacquainted with them until Ron got one the second year. They seem pretty common after that. (2) Why doesn't Dumbledore have a real, functional sneakoscope sitting in his office? Wouldn't that help root out some of those those pesky polyjuiced staff members? Why hasn't Harry cottoned to the value of his? (3) There is a whole invisibility section in the library. Harry was hiding in it when he was overhearing the Hufflepuffs in CoS. Why aren't there more invisible people running around? I just don't see a whole library section with book after book simply stating, "To become invisible, get a hold of an invisibility cloak." Several books would be on the manufacture of said cloaks, but not a whole section. It would be then called, "The Invisibility Cloak Section." (4) If the maturing mandrakes threw a loud raucous party in Greenhouse #3, who would be alive to tell the tale? (5) If all the copies of "Hogwarts, a History" were checked out in CoS, why didn't the details concerning the chamber spread through the grapevine? (6) If the Weasley clock has a "Mortal Peril" reading, why hasn't Molly Weasley noticed all the times Ron has been there? Ginny would also have been there everytime she was controlling the Basilisk. (7) Why did Dumbledore just open the back of Colin's camera? Yes, the film was fried, but if it wasn't, he would have destroyed some very valuable evidence. How would he know before hand that the film was fried? (8) How would an age line stop a banishing spell or the equivalent? (9) Why is the entrance to a 1000+ year-old chamber hidden behind a modern bathroom fixture? I don't think the Picts enjoyed indoor plumbing around the time of Alfred the Great. (10) Why did Uncle Vernon sleep through the bars being torn off the wall, but woke up at one screech from Hedwig, and come storming into the bedroom that they had locked down? I would think that they were used to Hedwig by now, but not the ripping of bars off a window. Marcus From jmt59home at aol.com Thu Jun 6 18:30:48 2002 From: jmt59home at aol.com (jtdogberry) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 18:30:48 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Neville and Foreshadowing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39479 Dogberry lies back and admires the latest catch having abandoned ship simple because it was going around in circles. Ok, I confess to being stumped on to the why does Moody's lesson affect Neville more then the dementors, and yes, I agree it was just a slip of the tounge with the egg. Mayby it was a shock to see it performed for real again. But I remain steadfast about Mrs Longbottom knowing Voldies whereabouts not her husband Frank (does anyone remember a childrens programme on the BBC many years ago, where it was some kids trying to hide this prof from the badies but the badies caught them and the "prof told them that the prof was not him but his wifeand so the badies were defeated) and I still say the is something fishy going on because of the way she is refered i.e. never by name. Again, something is going one with his remaining reletives, either evil gran OR evil Algie. I think something is about to happen about Neville because re-reading GOF (UK paperback edition)because three times, Neville's work in class is mentioned. First MCgonagall lesson p208, "Longbottom, kindly do not reveal that can't even perform a simple switching spell in front of anyone from Durmstrang. Second, in Flitwicks class p260 "...he was given extra homework, the only person to get any apart from Neville". Third, Mcgonagall again p336 "Neville's guinea pig still had feathers" This has never happened before. JKR seems to be trying to make him as useless as possible. Also, I think Percy's cauldron report is going to come into it, remember, he says leaking potons through crack in a thin bottom, he will know an awful lot about cauldron and what it would take to melt one, you just need to ask!!! So where is this all going, I have no idea, I'm very confused. I am down to Neville being under a memory charm again with evil gran thrown in or W.I.N.C.H. Dogberry (who really doesn't belive that Mcgonagall is evil and neither is Lupin.) > > For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit > Hypothetic Alley at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin20Files/hypoth > eticalley.htm > > and Inish Alley at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? > method=reportRows&tbl=13 From alina at distantplace.net Thu Jun 6 18:38:17 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 14:38:17 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Unanswered questions References: Message-ID: <00eb01c20d89$546e7180$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39480 From: prefectmarcus (3) There is a whole invisibility section in the library. Harry was hiding in it when he was overhearing the Hufflepuffs in CoS. Why aren't there more invisible people running around? I just don't see a whole library section with book after book simply stating, "To become invisible, get a hold of an invisibility cloak." Several books would be on the manufacture of said cloaks, but not a whole section. It would be then called, "The Invisibility Cloak Section." reply: Remember in PS Dumbledore told Harry that he (Dumbledore) doesn't need an invisibility cloak to become invisible? Maybe it's a very powerful magic available only to powerful wizards, maybe it's even beyond the abilities of most of the teachers in Hogwarts, not to mention the students. Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ "I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.368 / Virus Database: 204 - Release Date: 30/05/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Thu Jun 6 18:48:53 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 18:48:53 -0000 Subject: Invisibility section (WAS Re: Unanswered questions) In-Reply-To: <00eb01c20d89$546e7180$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39481 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Alina" wrote: > > From: prefectmarcus > reply: > > Remember in PS Dumbledore told Harry that he (Dumbledore) doesn't need an invisibility cloak to become invisible? Maybe it's a very powerful magic available only to powerful wizards, maybe it's even beyond the abilities of most of the teachers in Hogwarts, not to mention the students. > > Alina of Distant Place It may very well be extra powerful, but in that case why have a whole section dedicated to it? Seems a waste of resources. Marcus From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Jun 6 18:55:03 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 18:55:03 -0000 Subject: Unanswered questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39482 Disclaimer: Most of these answers are not canon-based Marcus wrote: > (1) Why didn't anybody receive a Howler during Harry's first year? > Harry was unacquainted with them until Ron got one the second year. > They seem pretty common after that. They did. Harry didn't notice. They happened at other tables and to older students (i.e. everyone except to eleven-year-olds, who are considered to be too young to receive howlers). When loud screeming occured at the morning table, Harry just disregarded it as another unexplained magical thing. > (2) Why doesn't Dumbledore have a real, functional sneakoscope > sitting in his office? Wouldn't that help root out some of those > those pesky polyjuiced staff members? Why hasn't Harry cottoned to > the value of his? The sneakoscopes don't work at schools: Moody said so, and stands to reason. The smaller versions of it aren't trustable enough. D'dore prefers his instincts (even if unreliable at times). Maybe he'll start using gadgets on OP > (3) There is a whole invisibility section in the library. Harry was > hiding in it when he was overhearing the Hufflepuffs in CoS. Why > aren't there more invisible people running around? I just don't see > a whole library section with book after book simply stating, "To > become invisible, get a hold of an invisibility cloak." Several > books would be on the manufacture of said cloaks, but not a whole > section. It would be then called, "The Invisibility Cloak Section." Where are they going to get the practice/ingredients/whatever needed to be invisible? Stealing from Snape has only happened twice, and we know what happened both times. Those books could be well talking all about the theory, too, but not the practice. Or they could be saying versions of "it can be done with a cloak, and with powerful enchantments, but it's unpractical". > (4) If the maturing mandrakes threw a loud raucous party in > Greenhouse #3, who would be alive to tell the tale? If a tree falls when there is no-one to hear, does it make any noise? Sprout talks about mandrakes changing pots, so in the morning (when they're sleeping the party off), she can check. Or she uses the ear-things. > (5) If all the copies of "Hogwarts, a History" were checked out in > CoS, why didn't the details concerning the chamber spread through the > grapevine? When I checked out a book from school, I just read the part I need to do my homework. I've got neither the time nor the inclination to read the rest of it. Only Hermione, in fact, would read it for fun. > (6) If the Weasley clock has a "Mortal Peril" reading, why hasn't > Molly Weasley noticed all the times Ron has been there? Ginny would > also have been there everytime she was controlling the Basilisk. But she does: she's always poping for visits at the end. She doesn't do so more often because Ron isn't in mortal peril more (just near the ends), and because as long as D'dore is around, she trusts him, and so does the clock. Ron wasn't in mortal peril in the chess fight at PS (even if HE didn't know it). Only briefly in the forest in CS, and during the day, when Molly was out buying food. Never was in danger at the end of CS. Broken leg in PA when Molly was already in bed (since it was late at night). He was never in danger in GF, not even in the second task (everyone except Harry knew that). > (7) Why did Dumbledore just open the back of Colin's camera? Yes, > the film was fried, but if it wasn't, he would have destroyed some > very valuable evidence. How would he know before hand that the film > was fried? He doesn't really know it would ruin the film. And, nonetheless, a special enchantment could bring it back (no, there is no canon for such spell). > (8) How would an age line stop a banishing spell or the equivalent? The goblet had an inmovili enchantment on it. And another to stop papers thrown from outside the circle from entering. > (9) Why is the entrance to a 1000+ year-old chamber hidden behind a > modern bathroom fixture? I don't think the Picts enjoyed indoor > plumbing around the time of Alfred the Great. The wizards still remembered Roman technology. Or, the pumbling was installed by a Slytherin descendant (Riddle's Great-Grandparent, for example). > (10) Why did Uncle Vernon sleep through the bars being torn off the > wall, but woke up at one screech from Hedwig, and come storming into > the bedroom that they had locked down? I would think that they were > used to Hedwig by now, but not the ripping of bars off a window. He woke up AFTER the grates had been pulled out. He sat in his bead, wondering what had woken him, and then heard Hedwig. > Marcus Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Thu Jun 6 19:01:34 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 12:01:34 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione and Charmed School Supplies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <847655145.20020606120134@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39483 Wednesday, June 5, 2002, 12:04:09 AM, uncmark wrote: u> Second, I've noticed a lack of good research tools in the library. u> Remember how hard in was to find Nicholas Flamel in Book 1? Not to mention Gillyweed... And why did none of those books mention the Bubblehead charm? It seemed familiar enough to Fleur and Cedric. u> I'm wondering if she could in the long run make a wizard equivalent u> of a computer to ease access to the VAST library at Hogwarts. In the u> Short run she might get Dumbledore-Dispensation to charm a mundane u> computer to work at Hogwarts. How about something along the lines of the Mauraders Map, except that it points out to you where in the library you can find a specific piece of info... In my Oz stories, a computer whiz named Dan is applying his computer knowledge to the magic in the Emerald City... Perhaps Hermione could take up the same profession... -- Dave From mdemeran at hotmail.com Thu Jun 6 19:03:03 2002 From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (Meg Demeranville) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 14:03:03 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Apparate or Die Trying References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39484 Warily eyeing Cindy's paddle, Meg crawls out of lurkerdom. Cindy wrote: So far, the only real purpose of establishing the ability to apparate is to explain how the DEs wind up in the graveyard. So JKR could have linked apparating to Voldemort. Just make it a Dark Art possible only via the Dark Mark on Voldemort's command and be done with it. Waving her hand in the air and begging "Pick me, Pick me", Meg replies: But we also have other instances of apparation. In CoS p. 69 Scholastic Hardback: "They don't need the car!" said Ron impatiently. "They know how to Apparate! You know, just vanish and reappear at home! They only bother with Floo powder and the car because we're all underage and we're not allowed to Apparate yet...." So apparation can not be a Dark Art because that would make Arthur and Molly both linked to Voldemort. We know that there are people who believe that Percy is evil, but Molly and Arthur too, then who are the good guys in these books? Besides, apparation also allows for Harry and Ron to take the car to Hogwarts without leaving Arthur and Molly stuck at King's Cross station. Elkins wrote: We never see anyone save Dobby (who as an Elf has special magical powers and therefore is not bothered by shields and such) apparate in or out of a house. (Percy does so *inside* the Burrow, but apparating down the stairs does not involve crossing the boundaries of the house itself.) I imagine that this is because all wizarding houses are protected, as Hogwarts is, against this form of intrusion as a matter of basic security. If you can't apparate in, then you can't disapparate out. This covers the Potters, the Longbottoms, and Peter in the Shrieking Shack. But we do see Arthur Weasley apparating into his house. "Before any of them could say anything else, there was a faint popping noise, and Mr. Weasley appeared out of thin air at George's shoulder." (GoF 52) So it must therefore be possible to apparate into a house since everyone was in the kitchen at the time. I think even Harry would have noticed had Arthur walked into the room from outside rather than just apparating in. I am not sure where this leaves us but that is the can(n)on behind apparation. Please forgive me if I stepped on any toes. - Meg (still warily eyeing that paddle) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From heidi at barefootpuppets.com Thu Jun 6 18:51:15 2002 From: heidi at barefootpuppets.com (barefootpuppets) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 18:51:15 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Foreshadowing. (was Re: Dumbledore does not HAVE to die.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39485 More about Dumbledore's *possible* demise... I wrote in response to another one: >... But you must admit that there was a lot of foreshadowing of Dumbledore looking older than ever in GoF. And Dumbledore spoke of death in Book 1 as the "next adventure." Then Marcus wrote: > I do admit that there is a great deal of foreshadowing about Dumbledore's demise. But let's face it. Rowling is red herring master. You also have Harry's growing maturity and the awareness of vunerabilies in his heroes that comes with it. Hmmm...yes, JKR is the master of red herrings, you are right. But I think even she would recognize the *need* to prepare her audience a bit for the death of a major character. We never really got to *know* Cedric very well. I believe this was very intentional. I think that since we do know Dumbledore and he is such a part of the Potterverse that his death (if it were to happen) would need substantial foreshadowing. Just my 2 cents.. Heidi R. From Ali at zymurgy.org Thu Jun 6 19:32:12 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 19:32:12 -0000 Subject: Harry and the riddle of Riddle In-Reply-To: <5f.287c99cc.2a30f036@cs.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39486 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., LysaK99 at c... wrote: >I am not sure about the Voldie as Harry's grampa , but > there has to be special signifigance, a special connection somehow. I'm not sure about the grandfather option either, but I feel certain about the significance >I am not sure that Riddle is old enough to be harry's grandfather, but uncle perhaps. I am definately anxious to find out! Tom Riddle was born c 1927 (see Lexicon for timings). Harry was born in 1980 when the Potters were c 22/23 - so they were born c. 1968, which makes Riddle certain old enough to be Harry's grandfather - although it doesn't mean he is Ali From JPA30 at cam.ac.uk Thu Jun 6 19:07:12 2002 From: JPA30 at cam.ac.uk (archeaologee) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 19:07:12 -0000 Subject: Unanswered questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39487 In response to some testing points Gray Wolf wrote: > > (7) Why did Dumbledore just open the back of Colin's camera? Yes, > > the film was fried, but if it wasn't, he would have destroyed some > > very valuable evidence. How would he know before hand that the film > > was fried? > > He doesn't really know it would ruin the film. And, nonetheless, a > special enchantment could bring it back (no, there is no canon for such > spell). > To use a little canon... to take magical photos (which Colin is doing a lot) you develope the film differently\treat it with something magical. For all we know non-red light has no effect on such a processing method. Especially as these photo's seem to not just capture the reflected light of the person\thing photographed but also something of its essence (hence the waving\hiding\sleeping of those in the pictures). Exposing this captured essance to light would not seem to effect it. > Hope that helps, > > Grey Wolf As do I, James From grega126 at aol.com Thu Jun 6 19:12:49 2002 From: grega126 at aol.com (greg_a126) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 19:12:49 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's dispensability In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39488 "cindysphynx" wrote: > Hey now! Ambushes aren't cliche! JKR hasn't given us a single > ambush yet, so how can it rise to the level of a cliche. I'm not exactly sure what your definition of an ambush is, but mine would probably be springing a trap on someone, especially when they weren't expecting it, and vastly out numbering them when you spring the trap. At the end of GoF, Harry, who had prepared himself to face one kind of danger, found himself torn away from every safety net he thought he had, to be confronted with the worst Dark Wizard in a century, & his some 30-odd followers. Seems pretty "ambush-like" to me. Greg From aiz24 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 6 19:53:26 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 15:53:26 -0400 Subject: Unanswered questions answered, and another asked Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39489 >(1) Why didn't anybody receive a Howler during Harry's first year? >Harry was unacquainted with them until Ron got one the second year. >They seem pretty common after that. They're not that common. Ron gets one in CS, Neville in PA, and Percy in GF. Maybe there's a mention of Hermione getting one also after the Bubotuber Pus in GF (am bookless, can't check). The other reason, of course, is: so we can learn about them later and JKR doesn't shoot her whole wad in Book One. But I do think it's realistic that Harry wouldn't have happened upon one after only one year in the WW. >(2) Why doesn't Dumbledore have a real, functional sneakoscope >sitting in his office? Wouldn't that help root out some of those >those pesky polyjuiced staff members? I think he probably does have one, or something better, but like Crouch Jr., finds it useless because there's so much dishonesty (and not just among students). They really are not very well-honed tools if all they can do is pick up when someone in the vicinity is being dishonest or untrustworthy; they must go off every time someone compliments him on his dress sense. Alina responded to the Invisibility Section question: >>Remember in PS Dumbledore told Harry that he (Dumbledore) doesn't need an invisibility cloak to become invisible? Maybe it's a very powerful magic available only to powerful wizards, maybe it's even beyond the abilities of most of the teachers in Hogwarts, not to mention the students. and Marcus wrote: >It may very well be extra powerful, but in that case why have a whole section dedicated to it? Seems a waste of resources. I figure the Hogwarts library is like the Library of Congress (Harvard, the Bodleian, whatever). It is THE library resource for the wizarding world in Britain. So there's lots of stuff in there that even a 7th-year wouldn't begin to understand; people who would understand it travel from afar to do research there >(7) Why did Dumbledore just open the back of Colin's camera? Yes, >the film was fried, but if it wasn't, he would have destroyed some >very valuable evidence. Even brilliant wizards can be clueless about Muggle objects. Now for my question: What house is prefectmarcus Prefect of? Amy Z _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Thu Jun 6 19:54:56 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 19:54:56 -0000 Subject: Foreshadowing in Harry Potter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39490 All this talk about foreshadowing has got me thinking. How much foreshadowing is there in Harry Potter really? I am not talking about hints, small details that become important later, and possible red herrings. I am talking lightening struck trees ala "Jane Eyre." Things like a strange shadow falling across Cedric's face, Lupin standing under a picture of a wolf, that sort of thing. Harry talking to the Boa Constrictor is not a foreshadow. It is a detail that becomes important later. Lupin's lunar-boggart is a hint, not a foreshadow. I know we have dreamed up a whole bunch of them, but what foreshadows have we actually seen come to pass? Would Psuedo-Moody arriving with a Clap-of-Thunder be considered foreshadowing or just a dramatic entrance? I am curious at your thoughts. Marcus From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Jun 6 20:06:30 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 20:06:30 -0000 Subject: Apparate or Die Trying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39491 Meg Demeranville wrote: > Warily eyeing Cindy's paddle, Meg crawls out of lurkerdom. Meg! Good to see you around. You should come more often. > Cindy wrote: So far, the only real purpose of establishing the > ability to apparate is to explain how the DEs wind up in the > graveyard. So JKR could have linked apparating to Voldemort. Just > make it a Dark Art possible only via the Dark Mark on Voldemort's > command and be done with it. > > Waving her hand in the air and begging "Pick me, Pick me", Meg > replies: But we also have other instances of apparation. In CoS p. 69 > Scholastic Hardback: > > "They don't need the car!" said Ron impatiently. "They know how to > Apparate! You know, just vanish and reappear at home! They only > bother with Floo powder and the car because we're all underage and > we're not allowed to Apparate yet...." > > So apparation can not be a Dark Art because that would make Arthur > and Molly both linked to Voldemort. We know that there are people who > believe that Percy is evil, but Molly and Arthur too, then who are > the good guys in these books? Besides, apparation also allows for > Harry and Ron to take the car to Hogwarts without leaving Arthur and > Molly stuck at King's Cross station. Meg, Cindy was saying that *IF* JKR had described apparating as a Dark Art, there wouldn't be as many FLINTS as she see's in the common apparating. I don't see as many flints as she does, and definetly believe that making it at Dark Art wouldn't make it any easier. As many other things in the wizard world, apparating is a knack that only someone who's got nothing else in his mind can do. Any sort of mind trouble could make you fail the apparating, and (suposing that another wizard can follow your trail - we know the MoM can) you don't want to be reduced to mincemeat when a potential enemy could find you. > But we do see Arthur Weasley apparating into his house. "Before any > of them could say anything else, there was a faint popping noise, and > Mr. Weasley appeared out of thin air at George's shoulder." (GoF 52) > > So it must therefore be possible to apparate into a house since > everyone was in the kitchen at the time. I think even Harry would > have noticed had Arthur walked into the room from outside rather than > just apparating in. > > I am not sure where this leaves us but that is the can(n)on behind > apparation. Please forgive me if I stepped on any toes. Which reminds me: we see that the clock goes from "at the office" to "traveling" for a while before Arthur arrives ("at home"), so apparating *does* take a while - even if it's not visible in either place for the duration (take note, Cindy!). I believe that during that time, the apparator can be affected by magic in either place. There is, of course, no canon either way. > - Meg (still warily eyeing that paddle) Come on, Meg, do you think I'd leave her hit you? Cindy is, after all, just a form of a cat: a sphinx, and there is no cat who would face my teeth. Howl! Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who has almost finished today's work From meboriqua at aol.com Thu Jun 6 20:09:13 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 20:09:13 -0000 Subject: Maybe Hagrid is the LOYAL person(who just has some major [confidence?] problems) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39492 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "greg_a126" wrote: > You don't just go from one day being just the groundskeeper, to being trusted with the safety of the most important wizard in the world. We know little to nothing about what happened during the first war. All we know is the death of the few people that Hagrid mentioned the first time he met Harry in the PS, and nearly everyone assumes that the Order of the Pheonix is charged with protecting the wizarding > world against Voldemort. Beyond that, we're pretty well clueless. > It's quite possible that Hagrid did something to prove his loyalty > to Dumbledore in the midsts of a wizarding war before Harry was even > a twinkle in his parents eyes.> I think it is a good question to raise as to why Dumbledore trusted Hagrid in the first place, allowing him to stay on as groundskeeper. I wonder, though, if Hagrid's job was given to him more because Dumbledore didn't trust Tom Riddle, the student who set Hagrid up to get expelled in the first place. Tom's diary brought Harry in CoS to a scene where Dumbledore, the Transfiguration Professor, seems quite suspicious of Tom wandering around the school alone at night, Head Boy or not. Perhaps Dumbledore took pity on Hagrid and saw him as harmless, not necessarily trustworthy, and wanted to give him the chance to stay at Hogwarts. Dumbledore probably already knew that Hagrid had problems at home (dead beat giant mom and dad who died) and felt sorry. He also probably knew that Hagrid, not the brightest star in the sky, was not responsible for opening the Chamber and couldn't prove that Tom Riddle (such a good student! such a nice looking boy!) was responsible. Giving the groundskeeper's job to Hagrid was Dumbledore's way of saying "I know you're innocent". Just because Hagrid, years later, can be trusted by Dumbledore to get baby Harry safely to the Dursleys doesn't mean that *Hagrid* knows who to trust. Or maybe it's just me - *I* don't trust Hagrid. I have a bad feeling about his blind loyalty to Dumbledore - I just do. Hagrid has made too many mistakes so far - big ones - for me to be comfortable with the choices he may make in the future. --jenny from ravenclaw, pleased to have an ally in aldrea! ************************************************ From mdemeran at hotmail.com Thu Jun 6 20:22:54 2002 From: mdemeran at hotmail.com (Meg Demeranville) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 15:22:54 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Apparate or Die Trying References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39493 Grey Wolf, I almost can believe you if not for one thing. You said: " As many other things in the wizard world, apparating is a knack that only someone who's got nothing else in his mind can do. Any sort of mind trouble could make you fail the apparating, and (suposing that another wizard can follow your trail - we know the MoM can) you don't want to be reduced to mincemeat when a potential enemy could find you. " How heartless are you making Molly and Arthur out to be? Wouldn't Molly and Arthur be troubled that the boys failed to show up on the platform and then that the car was missing? How could they apparate in that state? I would be frantic. Since Ron has grown up in the WW, he should know that you can't apparate with a troubled mind if that was the case and I don't think he would do that to his parents. Yes, 12 year old boys can be thoughtless, but that would, I think, have crossed Ron's mind somehow. Just my thoughts, - Meg (who took the day off from work and who thanks Grey Wolf for his protection) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Jun 6 20:24:36 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 20:24:36 -0000 Subject: Unanswered questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39494 I thought a little more while pouring over my stuudies, so I thought I might answer again: Marcus wrote: > (3) There is a whole invisibility section in the library. Harry was > hiding in it when he was overhearing the Hufflepuffs in CoS. Why > aren't there more invisible people running around? I just don't see > a whole library section with book after book simply stating, "To > become invisible, get a hold of an invisibility cloak." Several > books would be on the manufacture of said cloaks, but not a whole > section. It would be then called, "The Invisibility Cloak Section." Most of the books could be dedicated to the theme "How to detect invisible things". A simple method I can think off would be a spell (which, since it requires a wand, and I'm not sure Snape has one, he wouldn't be able to use when looking for Harry Potter throught the school at late hours of the night), or any other magical mean (which means Filch would never be able to use them, even in the unlikely eent he has actually read them), and would describe other methods: using kneazles (such as Filch's cat), and how to enchant a magical eyeball so that it's user could see through anything, invcluding invisibility cloaks... > (7) Why did Dumbledore just open the back of Colin's camera? Yes, > the film was fried, but if it wasn't, he would have destroyed some > very valuable evidence. How would he know before hand that the film > was fried? Cindy answered: > Even brilliant wizards can be clueless about Muggle objects. My mother doesn't know how to operate the video. My grandmother doesn't know how to operate either a video or a computer. My great-grandparent probably thought cameras were modern technology. Someone who's 150 years old wouldn't necesarily understand how does a reflex camera work. Maybe he's got a camera which doesn't present that "minor" problem (he's got it on the shelf, beside the put-outer, a lighter which doesn't ever run out of fuel, and it's called picture-restorer ;-) ) > Now for my question: What house is prefectmarcus Prefect of? > > Amy Z All these malevolent questions, and his thirst for trying to find flints instead of solving them surely puts him in Slytherin, don't you think? ;-) James wrote: > In response to some testing points > Gray Wolf wrote: > ... Gray Wolf? *Gray* Wolf? Ohmygod what have I done to deserve this! :-) Please, Please, try to write my name correctly. it's not THAT difficult! Then again, one of these days I'll present my second alter-ego (look for a pst made by me on T-BAY by the name "Gray Wolfe", so it could get confusing... Hope that helps *Grey* Wolf, who has filled his daily quota of smilies on this post alone. From cindysphynx at comcast.net Thu Jun 6 20:24:58 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 20:24:58 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Minerva McGonagall Is Ever So Evil! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39495 > "Cindy," Elkins said softly. "Cindy? Uh, could you go back to > Number Three again for just a minute please?" Don't mind if I do! Yeah, I should have listened to Porphyria when she first started knocking back that Kool-Aid and told me straight up that McGonagall was Ever So Evil. I didn't *want* to believe, that's what it was. I feel like such a *sucker*! But it is even worse than Porphyria said. It is even worse than *Elkins* said. McGonagall's Evil Little Fingerprints are all over the plot to restore Voldemort to power! First up, look what McGonagall teaches Harry. This is *Harry* we're talking about, the baby who defeated Lord Voldemort, the wizard who may be called upon to save the wizarding world itself. Is McGonagall teaching him the Animagus transformation or how to Apparate -- skills that might save the boy's life? Heck no! She is teaching him how to turn beetles into buttons, needles into matches, porcupines into pin-cushions. And what exactly is Harry to do with these oh-so formidable Transfiguration skills? "Hang on, Lord Voldemort! Once I change this match into a needle, I am going to *prick* you to death!" At the end of 4 years, the boy knows next to nothing about Transfiguration, and we have McGonagall to thank for that. She actually gets *paid* for this? Yeah, she'll get paid all right. She'll be honored above all other *Death Eaters*, that's how she'll be paid! Need more proof? How about a *direct link* between McGonagall and Fake Moody? Before the Third Task, McGonagall, Fake Moody, Hagrid and Flitwick are stationed outside the maze. McGonagall says, "We are going to be patrolling the outside of the maze." And how does Fake Moody describe his mission that night: "You had an easier time of it than you should have in that maze tonight, of course . . . I was patrolling around it, able to see through the outer hedges . . . " Did you catch that? McGonagall had the same marching orders as Fake Moody: "*patrolling*" the maze! Now, what are the odds that McGonagall and Fake Moody used the word "patrolling" out of sheer coincidence? It sounds like they might have had a little conversation to work out what they were going to do, doesn't it? Geez, the two of them didn't even *try* to hide their little conspiracy, did they? Who staged a "loud conversation" with Fake Moody to tip Dobby off about the gillyweed? Right in one! Minerva, that's who! I can just *see* the two of them practically yelling in their fake stage voices, their hands cupped around their mouths, ennunciating their words ever-so-clearly to make sure Dobby didn't miss a word of it. You know what else? That McGonagall couldn't keep her nose out of places where it doesn't belong in GoF, and she proved herself to be a bit of a control freak, if truth be told. "Tired of walking in on Harry, Hermione, and Ron all over the school, Professor McGonagall had given them permission to use the empty Transfiguration classroom at lunchtime." Huh? What is she doing snooping all over the school, following Harry as he tries to prepare for the Third Task, anyway? I'll tell you what she is doing. She is monitoring Harry's progress to make sure he *wins* and is whipped straight to her Evil Master. Yup, she is so gung-ho to help Harry that she looks the other way when he is receiving unauthorized assistance from Hermione, the brightest student in the whole school! Anything to bring home that Triwizard Cup for Hogwarts, eh Minerva? No, she wasn't leaving *anything* to chance, was she? The hostages were placed into a bewitched sleep in *McGonagall's* office, weren't they? Boy, that's some power play, isn't it? Minerva has no official role to play in the tournament, but there she is, dictating where and with whom Harry practices, making sure the hostages are brought to her office. Nah, she has no official role other than to *keep an eye on things on behalf of her Evil Overlord!* You know how badly McGonagall had you all fooled? Look at Crouch Jr.'s confession: "I offered to carry the Triwizard Cup into the maze before dinner . . . Turned it into a Portkey." Well, look at that! He never says *he* turned it into a Portkey, does he? Oh, sure, when Crouch Jr. talks about transfiguring his dead father into a bone, he is quite explicit: "I Transfigured my father's body." But when he talks about the Portkey, he suddenly drops a personal pronoun, doesn't he? Well, there's a reason for that. He probably had a little help with that Portkey, don't you think? Help from a certain *Transfiguration Teacher* I could name. Don't even get me *started* on a witch who thinks formal attire ought to include a hat with "a rather ugly wreath of thistles." 'Cause that is just plain Evil! Cindy (trying to remember that there are two "L"s in "McGonagall" but only one "L" in "Evil") From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Thu Jun 6 20:33:27 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 20:33:27 -0000 Subject: Unanswered questions answered, and another asked In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39496 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > > > >(1) Why didn't anybody receive a Howler during Harry's first year? > >Harry was unacquainted with them until Ron got one the second year. > >They seem pretty common after that. > > They're not that common. Ron gets one in CS, Neville in PA, and Percy in > GF. Maybe there's a mention of Hermione getting one also after the > Bubotuber Pus in GF (am bookless, can't check). ----- Are we to believe that out of 250 - 1000 students, not one kid disappointed his parents in anyway? That not one parent doesn't over react to something their child did or didn't do? For the whole school year? My point is not the lack of mention. My point is that Harry is unfamiliar with them until CoS. ===== > Now for my question: What house is prefectmarcus Prefect of? > > Amy Z Can't you tell? :) Marcus From marilyn at gtf.org Thu Jun 6 19:57:26 2002 From: marilyn at gtf.org (girl from mars) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 15:57:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts, A History (was: Unanswered questions) In-Reply-To: ; from greywolf1@jazzfree.com on Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 06:55:03PM -0000 References: Message-ID: <20020606155726.A31555@gtf.org> No: HPFGUIDX 39497 Marcus wrote: > > (5) If all the copies of "Hogwarts, a History" were checked out in > > CoS, why didn't the details concerning the chamber spread through the > > grapevine? grey wolf responded: > When I checked out a book from school, I just read the part I need to > do my homework. I've got neither the time nor the inclination to read > the rest of it. Only Hermione, in fact, would read it for fun. But I was under the impression that all the copies were checked out *because* people wanted to find out about the chamber, as I can't think of any class that they'd need it for. Dumb History of Magic never covering anything of interest, as it were. But! I also thought it was strange that they had to go to the library to get it, as Hermoine has obviously read at least some of it already, before she gets to Hogwarts. How would she have done that without owning it? Is there a library in Diagon Alley that we don't know about? --marilyn, who is very excited about discovering a group of people as determined as she is to discuss HP as much as possible. hi! From editor at texas.net Thu Jun 6 20:56:25 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 15:56:25 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Unanswered questions References: Message-ID: <01cb01c20d9c$a04c2800$8d7763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39498 James wrote, about Grey Wolf's post: > In response to some testing points > Gray Wolf wrote: > > Aha. Grey Wolf, this is the very reason that the phrases, "I believe," "probably," "it might be that," "perhaps," and other such qualifiers are *so important.* I don't think that your little "Disclaimer: Most of these answers are not canon-based" up at the top of your post was sufficient; in fact, I missed it on the first scan and was fixing you up a Howler (I spotted it on the second go-round). Many readers tend to scan rather than read every single word of a post--please to phrase speculative responses more carefully. Readers--Grey Wolf gave an impressive demonstration of memory, canon, and *imagination.* For example, there is no canon basis for any spells on the Triwizard Cup. Such spells are likely, but unspecified. We request that any speculative arguments are clearly phrased as such--NOT: "Vernon Dursley had a massive crush on Lily and only rebounded to Petunia, causing them both to hate Lily thereafter", but rather "I think that maybe Vernon Dursley had a massive crush etc." See? --Amandageist, toying with a water balloon and looking Grey Wolf's way speculatively From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jun 6 21:02:55 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 21:02:55 -0000 Subject: Foreshadowing in Harry Potter/Apparating & Duels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39499 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "prefectmarcus" wrote: > All this talk about foreshadowing has got me thinking. How much foreshadowing is there in Harry Potter really? > > I am not talking about hints, small details that become important later, and possible red herrings. I am talking lightening struck trees ala "Jane Eyre." Things like a strange shadow falling across Cedric's face, Lupin standing under a picture of a wolf, that sort of thing. Funny you should mention Lupin ... ***** "The dementors affect you worse than the others because there are horrors in your past that the others don't have." A ray of wintry sunlight fell across the classroom, illuminating Lupin's gray hairs and the lines on his young face.**** PoA - ch. 10 At that point we don't know about any horrors in Lupin's past. We haven't discovered that Lupin is a werewolf or that all of his childhood friends were undone in the space of a day or two, so I would call that a foreshadow. Although perhaps I am not clear on the difference between a foreshadow and a hint. Another is McGonagall's assessment of Hagrid: "You think it --*wise*--to trust Hagrid with something as important as this?" "I would trust Hagrid with my life," said Dumbledore. "I'm not saying his heart isn't in the right place," said Professor McGonagall grudgingly, "but you can't pretend he's not careless..." PS/SS ch 1 We've been focused on whether this might foreshadow Dumbledore's death, but it definitely foreshadows Hagrid's careless revelation of Fluffy's weakness. As far as Cedric's death we get what I'd call a negative foreshadow: "Ced, that'll be something to tell your grandchildren, that will" GoF-ch. 6 **** The ever-multiplying magical device problem is one that plagues many writers. Larry Niven stopped setting stories in the Known Space universe because he got tired of having to figure out why the characters couldn't use the gadgets he'd already invented to escape whatever dilemma he'd put them in. Maybe that's what's taking Phoenix so long? As far as Apparating out of a duel, though, I think this would go against that warrior ethos we're always talking about. No wizard worth his floo powder would run. It's the High Noon thing, right? Non-combatant Lily did try to run for it with Harry, but James tried to hold Voldemort off and failed. As for the Shack, even if it isn't sealed against Apparation (and I don't know why it wouldn't be) I can't imagine that notevil!Lupin or Sirius would Apparate away to save themselves if it meant leaving three children behind them in danger. We know what the wizarding world thinks of attacking from behind, so Apparating behind your challenger and nailing him with a curse before he turns around is not on. Voldemort, remember, is recruiting his followers by claiming that purebloods are superior to others because they have "proper wizard feeling". He has to at least pretend to honor the old warrior ways, I think. Pippin From alina at distantplace.net Thu Jun 6 21:10:30 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 17:10:30 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Foreshadowing in Harry Potter References: Message-ID: <000f01c20d9e$9760e9e0$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39500 ----- Original Message ----- From: prefectmarcus I know we have dreamed up a whole bunch of them, but what foreshadows have we actually seen come to pass? Would Psuedo-Moody arriving with a Clap-of-Thunder be considered foreshadowing or just a dramatic entrance? I am curious at your thoughts. Marcus Unicorns are dying in book 1. If I'm not mistaken, Cedric's wand contains Unicorn hair, right? And as many have mentioned, so does Ron's. And the centaurs said it's always the innocent that die first and Cedric was among the first to die from Voldemort's return. There ya go, foreshadowing right there. Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ "I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.368 / Virus Database: 204 - Release Date: 29/05/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From alina at distantplace.net Thu Jun 6 21:12:36 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 17:12:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts, A History (was: Unanswered questions) References: <20020606155726.A31555@gtf.org> Message-ID: <001b01c20d9e$e2797640$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39501 ----- Original Message ----- From: girl from mars But! I also thought it was strange that they had to go to the library to get it, as Hermoine has obviously read at least some of it already, before she gets to Hogwarts. How would she have done that without owning it? Is there a library in Diagon Alley that we don't know about? --marilyn, Hermione said she had to leave her copy back home because she had too many books with her as is. Alina. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.368 / Virus Database: 204 - Release Date: 29/05/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aiz24 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 6 21:12:08 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 17:12:08 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts, A History (was: Unanswered questions) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39502 Marilyn flew in all the way from Mars (welcome!) to write: >But I was under the impression that all the copies were checked out >*because* people wanted to find out about the chamber I thought so too. Maybe the rumor *did* make the rounds but hadn't filtered to the 2nd-years yet. Or they had them out for Binns but, unlike what Hermione suspected, were only reading the boring passages. >But! I also thought it was strange that they had to go to the library >to get it, as Hermoine has obviously read at least some of it already, >before she gets to Hogwarts. How would she have done that without >owning it? Is there a library in Diagon Alley that we don't know about? She owns a copy but couldn't fit it in her trunk because of all the Lockhart books (can't give chapter, but it's true). Amy Z _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From oppen at cnsinternet.com Thu Jun 6 21:25:02 2002 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 16:25:02 -0500 Subject: Apparating out when the DEs come calling Message-ID: <00c901c20da0$9f556f20$8187aa41@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 39503 As I understand it, a lot of wizards and witches _can't_ Apparate...it's apparently a fairly high-risk way of getting from Point A to Point B. I remember Percy pointedly Apparating here and there in GoF _just to show that he could do it._ Kind of like a kid with his first driver's licence, or so it seems to me. I don't think we've ever seen the Weasley parents Apparating, and AFAIR even Dumbledore doesn't do it much. Even if I know _how_ to Apparate, doing so when I've got a bunch of Seriously Evil Wizards pounding through my front door, lusting for my chitlins, might be more than I could handle. I have the impression that to avoid Splinching, wizards and witches have to concentrate pretty hard on getting their Apparition _just_ right. For that matter, we might hear in a future book about people who tried Apparating out to get away from Lord V. and his merry men, only to end up Splinching themselves in various nasty ways, much to the amusement of Lord V. And that isn't bringing up the probabilty that the DEs have some way to prevent their would-be victims from just Apparating out---an Anti-Apparition Field of some sort is one possibility. Unlike Apparition, (and the Floo), Portkeys seem to be fairly idiot-proof. If I were a wizard in the HPiverse and seriously worried about DEs coming to pay me a little visit (picky picky picky...just because I was instrumental in throwing a bunch of them to the Dementors, they get all whiny and can't take a joke) I might have a Portkey prepared to take me somewhere that I know for sure is safe...Hogwarts, the Aurors' HQ, the Ministry of Magic. So when I see the DEs breaking down my door, I raise my wand and scream "Accio (Portkey)!" and I'm outta there before they can stop me, and as far as we know, they wouldn't know how to follow unless they had identical Portkeys. From marilyn at gtf.org Thu Jun 6 20:33:50 2002 From: marilyn at gtf.org (girl from mars) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 16:33:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry and the riddle of Riddle In-Reply-To: ; from Edblanning@aol.com on Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 07:55:23AM -0400 References: Message-ID: <20020606163350.A9130@gtf.org> No: HPFGUIDX 39504 Ali said: > > I have read a theory that Voldie had a > > sister, because of Dobby's reaction to Harry asking if Voldie had a > > brother: > > "Dobby shook his head, his eyes wider than ever" p 18 COS. > > It was argued that the eyes widening were hinting to Harry that he > > close ie a sister not a brother. and Eloise replied: > That would be entirely consistent with Dobby's method of communicating. I certainly agree that the wide eyes signify that Harry's guess is close in some way. But directly before that, Dobby has just rejected Harry's guess that the warning has something to do with Voldemort: Slowly, Dobby shook his head. "Not--not He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, sir--" But Dobby's eyes were wide and he seemed to be trying to give Harry a hint. [p17, CoS] We learn at the end that Dobby *was* trying to give a clue, pointing out that "the Dark Lord, before he changed his name, could be freely named." I would assume that as Harry stays in the same line of guessing (focusing on people *related* to Voldemort even after finding out that it isn't Voldemort himself), Dobby believes that his clue led Harry on the right track. I think we should trust Dumbledore if he says Voldemort is Slytherin's last remaining decendant, as Dumbledore does not seem prone to spewing facts which he doesn't have very good reason to believe to be true. And I think we should trust the publishers in the statement that the "ancestor" line was a typo, as it would be very screwy of them to go around making statements about things which could so drastically alter the plot. --marilyn From merlyn_dawson at hotmail.com Thu Jun 6 19:40:55 2002 From: merlyn_dawson at hotmail.com (Sherlock (a.k.a Merlyn)) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 20:40:55 +0100 Subject: Hermione's age - why it matters (was Canon disagreement; Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39505 Just to add to this: I've a friend who's birthday is on the 4th September. Since the school year in (my school and surround schools in the Ribble Valley) starts on either the 2nd or 3rd of September, that makes my friend a whole school year older than the rest of us, starting at age 12. His year of birth is 1985, whereas mine and 96% of my year's birth years are 1986. Hermione will have turned 11 a whole school year EARLIER than Harry, which means she starts Hogwarts at the age of 12, making her year of birth 1979 (if Harry was born in 1980). On the 1980 being Harry's birth year, I was wondering something. It would make more sense that JK Rowling is writing the books so that they happen in real time, rather than events that have already happened - or it would make more sense for the age group HP is aimed at (9yr olds), just to make the books and the world of Harry Potter seem more 'real' to them. I wonder if it is possible that the working out of the date from Nearly Headless Nick's cake in CoS is just a blooper? 500 just being a handy number or something (or a more significant number to celebrate - after all, I think odd numbers have some magical significance...). Plus 1492 is supposed to be the year Christopher Columbus discovered America (which is a date most people know). Anyway, just a few comments from me :) Steph "The distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." Albert Einstein Sade - a play about the Marquis de Sade. Official site - http://www.sade.r4f.com _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From editor at texas.net Thu Jun 6 21:41:19 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 16:41:19 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts, A History (was: Unanswered questions) References: Message-ID: <020a01c20da2$e594ea40$8d7763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39506 Amy said > Marilyn flew in all the way from Mars (welcome!) to write: > > >But I was under the impression that all the copies were checked out > >*because* people wanted to find out about the chamber > > I thought so too. Maybe the rumor *did* make the rounds but hadn't filtered > to the 2nd-years yet. Or they had them out for Binns but, unlike what > Hermione suspected, were only reading the boring passages. I had always thought that all the copies were removed from the library, to keep down rampant speculation among the students. Nothing to base that on, I just thought it made sense. That would explain the lack of books *and* the lack of rumors about the Chamber. --Amanda From marilyn at gtf.org Thu Jun 6 21:23:03 2002 From: marilyn at gtf.org (girl from mars) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 17:23:03 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts, A History (was: Unanswered questions) In-Reply-To: <001b01c20d9e$e2797640$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com>; from alina@distantplace.net on Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 05:12:36PM -0400 References: <20020606155726.A31555@gtf.org> <001b01c20d9e$e2797640$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <20020606172303.A19941@gtf.org> No: HPFGUIDX 39507 Alina wrote: > Hermione said she had to leave her copy back home because she had too many > books with her as is. Indeed. All those Lockhart books... But now that I have my book out, it does also say: "Why do you want it?" said Harry. "The same reason everyone else wants it," said Hermione, "to read up on the legend of the Chamber of Secrets." [p147-8, CoS] Granted, this *could* just be her opinion, but following what I just said about Dumbledore, Hermoine rarely says things as fact unless she has a reason to believe they're true, despite the fact that when *I* was a smart-alecky kid, I certainly took advantage of the fact that other kids would usually believe whatever I said if I said it with enough confidence. :) --marilyn From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jun 6 21:49:19 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 21:49:19 -0000 Subject: Unanswered questions answered, and another asked In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39508 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "prefectmarcus" > Are we to believe that out of 250 - 1000 students, not one kid > disappointed his parents in anyway? That not one parent doesn't over react to something their child did or didn't do? For the whole school year? > > My point is not the lack of mention. My point is that Harry is > unfamiliar with [Howlers] until CoS. There *is* a lot of stuff Harry doesn't pay attention to, but if all Harry ever heard was the yelling and/or the explosion, which take place *after* the red envelope is opened, he wouldn't necessarily know what caused it. Re: why all the books dealing with gillyweed and bubble head are missing, my DH had the perfect answer: The other Tri-wizard contestants had already checked them out. Yes, all of them. It *is* a contest, you know. :-) Pippin From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Jun 6 21:58:34 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 21:58:34 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts, A History (was: Unanswered questions) In-Reply-To: <20020606155726.A31555@gtf.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39509 marilyn wrote: > But I was under the impression that all the copies were checked out > *because* people wanted to find out about the chamber, as I can't > think of any class that they'd need it for. Dumb History of Magic > never covering anything of interest, as it were. > > But! I also thought it was strange that they had to go to the > library to get it, as Hermoine has obviously read at least some of it > already, before she gets to Hogwarts. How would she have done that > without owning it? Is there a library in Diagon Alley that we don't > know about? > > --marilyn, who is very excited about discovering a group of people as > determined as she is to discuss HP as much as possible. hi! > "Why do you want it?" said Harry. > "The same reason everyone else wants it," said Hermione, "to > read up on the legend of the Chamber of Secrets." > [p147-8, CoS] There is, of course, another possibility: that indeed people took it out to look up info on the chamber of secrets and that the "Selective and Highly Biased History of Hogwarts" (liberal translation), apart from not mentioning house-elves at all, mulls over the Chamber of Secrets part. That would explain why all the books are out, but no-one knows anything about it (and why Hermione doesn't remeber anything about it). Hope that helps Grey Wolf, who is stranged at being accused of other people's reading habits. His post on the questions was humoristic in nature and not to be taken too seriously, and, since it included a general warning, didn't think it was necesary to include every other line: "there is no canon either way for this" - which, OTOH, isn't the same as IMO. From wynnde1 at aol.com Thu Jun 6 21:58:59 2002 From: wynnde1 at aol.com (wynnde1 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 17:58:59 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] TBAY: Minerva McGonagall Is Ever So Evil! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39510 Oooh! I LIKE this one. I've never been all that keen on McGonagall in any case - she has always struck me as being Ever So Lame for someone who is deputy headmaster of Hogwarts. If she is really Ever So Evil, then that explains the apparent lameness - she's just pretending to be mostly useless to lull everyone into a false sense of security. (AH! I hope there won't be a backlash from Supremely Competant and Useful and NotEvil!McGonagall fans over this statement). So here's my attempt to add to the "evidence" against her: I have often had the feeling that Dumbledore doesn't entirely trust her. I don't have a lot of canon for this (or even remember the specific moments) - but it has seemed to me in general that she is usually not as up-to-speed on what's been happening at Hogwarts as I would expect Dumbledore's second-in-command to be. That said, I will present one clear example of Dumbledore showing what I read as a lack of trust in her: GoF "Parting of the Ways" - After Fudge leaves and Dumbledore starts discussing plans for the future, he sends McGonagall out to get Hagrid, and then sends Poppy to care for Winky. Then, "Dumbledore made sure that the door was closed, and that Madame Pomphrey's footsteps had died away, before he spoke again." Obviously, he didn't want Poppy to witness what was about to happen (Okay - so far it looks more like evidence for Evil!Poppy ). But he also obviously didn't want McGonagall there, or he wouldn't have sent her away. (And JKR had to send MM away first, and PP second, or it would have been too obvious that MM was really the one Dumbledore wanted out of the way ). After all, he didn't mind that Molly Weasley was still hanging around. So why wouldn't he have wanted McGonagall, his deputy headmaster and seemingly faithful sidekick , to be fully appraised of the situation, as well? So it certainly looks to me like Dumbledore has some trust issues with McGonagall. This leads me to question why he left her to guard Crouch Jr. If he doesn't trust her, isn't it foolish to leave her to guard the prisoner? My (admittedly shaky) explanation for this is that he did it as a test of her loyalty. After all, Dumbledore had already gotten everything HE needed from Crouch. So he gave her an opportunity to show where her loyalties really lie (which she has done - hence he sends her away before revealing Sirius' identity). But could he forsee that MM would allow the Dementor's Kiss to happen? Okay. It does seem really shaky. Perhaps someone else can come up with a better theory to explain this. Going off on a small tangent here . . . Another question which has just occurred to me regarding that scene: On my first reading, I assumed that Dumbledore sent everyone he considered "extraneous" out of the room to protect Sirius' identity (or at least his animagus status). But now I think he is actually more interested in protecting Severus - doesn't want it to be common knowledge that he has a Dumbledore-sponsored secret mission to carry out. In fact, I just realised that he even sent Sirius away before mentioning Snape's mission. So I think THAT is really the bigger secret which Dumbledore is trying to keep. (Hopefully we won't end up with Evil!Molly or all Dumbledore's trouble in sending people away will have been for nothing ). So, Evil!McGonagall is currently my favourite candidate for the "who will betray Dumbledore" sweepstakes. Much better than Evil!Lupin. Not that the argument for that wasn't impressive (it is an awesome and very compelling argument, IMO) - it's just that I get all warm and fuzzy thinking about Remus, and it would break my little ole heart for him to prove the evil one. < G> And since it is a near certainty that SOMEONE we trust will prove evil (and it WON'T be Snape, for whom I get even warmer and fuzzier than with Remus ) - one of these Evil! theories is bound to turn out correct! :-) Wynnde (who is pleased to be finally making her second posting to this group, after much lurking). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From usergoogol at yahoo.com Thu Jun 6 22:04:51 2002 From: usergoogol at yahoo.com (usergoogol) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 22:04:51 -0000 Subject: 1980 being Harry Potter's Birthyear (short) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39511 ---ORIGINALLY SAID BY SHERLOCK AKA MERLIN--- On the 1980 being Harry's birth year, I was wondering something. It would make more sense that JK Rowling is writing the books so that they happen in real time, rather than events that have already happened - or it would make more sense for the age group HP is aimed at (9yr olds), just to make the books and the world of Harry Potter seem more 'real' to them. I wonder if it is possible that the working out of the date from Nearly Headless Nick's cake in CoS is just a blooper? 500 just being a handy number or something (or a more significant number to celebrate - after all, I think odd numbers have some magical significance...). Plus 1492 is supposed to be the year Christopher Columbus discovered America (which is a date most people know). --------------------------------------------- I disagree with some of your reasoning, (Harry Potter is not targetted at nine year olds) but I agree with you to an extent. Besides the fact that 1492 and 500 are both very nice round numbers, there is a bit of a factual error which, although can be gotten around by saying that Rowling just made a little mistake, does impare the thing a bit. In the begining of GoF, (supposedly in 1994) Dudley's Playstation is thrown out the window. However, the Sony Playstation was first released in 1995. (And England tends to get video games later than the rest of the world, not earlier.) Trust me on this, by the way, I know my video games. I don't, however, think that the 1980 chronology is completely wrong. After all, 1994 and 1995 are pretty close. I think that the whole matter is very delicate though, and that there is no purely failsafe timeline theory. (This one is ideal for the time being though.) ~User "Harry Potter and the Ocarina of Time" Googol~ From suzchiles at pobox.com Thu Jun 6 23:11:32 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 16:11:32 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts, A History (was: Unanswered questions) In-Reply-To: <20020606155726.A31555@gtf.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39512 > -----Original Message----- > From: girl from mars [mailto:marilyn at gtf.org] > But! I also thought it was strange that they had to go to the library > to get it, as Hermoine has obviously read at least some of it already, > before she gets to Hogwarts. How would she have done that without > owning it? Is there a library in Diagon Alley that we don't know about? > Maybe Hermione is one of those readers who'll sit around in a bookstore and read a book for 30 or 45 minutes at a time. There are a lot of us. She may have found it while shopping for her first-year supplies and scanned through for a bit. Zo From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Thu Jun 6 23:35:54 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 23:35:54 -0000 Subject: Sneakoscopes (was Unanswered questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39513 Marcus, offering prefectorial advice in the manner of Percy: > > (2) Why doesn't Dumbledore have a real, functional sneakoscope > > sitting in his office? Wouldn't that help root out some of those > > those pesky polyjuiced staff members? Why hasn't Harry cottoned to > > the value of his? Grey Wolf, possibly motivated by loyalty to his ever-so-evil role model Remus: > The sneakoscopes don't work at schools: Moody said so, and stands to > reason. The smaller versions of it aren't trustable enough. ...and we are supposed to believe him? The sneakoscope is developing into a running gag (Cindy, does this count as gadget foreshadowing? No, I thought not.) In POA it goes off whenever Scabbers is around, so they think it's defective. In GOF, Crouch comes up with plausible excuses for either disabling the Dark Detectors or explaining why they appear to malfunction. They are, of course, detecting *him* - the one clue which I feel even I should have picked up first time around, not that I did. At the end of GOF, Harry and Ron *still* haven't realised that Harry's sneakoscope is perfectly all right - thus paving the way for JKR to use it yet again. Presumably this time she will make it go off when two people enter the room, and we will pat ourselves on the back for figuring out the wrong one of the two - the right one will be Hermione under Imperius. So, really, I think Prefectmarcus' question does stand David From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Thu Jun 6 23:42:51 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 23:42:51 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Krum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39515 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > This all goes to prove my point: it could be a problem if Viktor's > feelings for Hermione are as intense as they seem to be. Maybe > they aren't, of course; there's always narrative twist. Still, The > Second Task happens after the ball, and that's when Viktor tells > her he's "never felt this way about anyone else." Experimental > flings and mature attitudes are all very well, but he's of age, by > the laws of his world, and she isn't. Whatever it is, it's not a > relationship of equals. > > I'm sure Viktor is a gentleman with Hermione. But it would be > kind of odd if Viktor had such intense feelings and they didn't > have an erotic component, even if it's only a wistful fantasy about > what she'll be like when she's as mature and sophisticated as > she looked on the night of the ball. (If not, he's considerably less > imaginative than a lot of our list members!) > > Hermione doesn't, or shouldn't, have to deal with that. She > doesn't have to set any boundaries with Viktor. She can rightfully > expect him to do it for her. However, learning to manage her > feelings is part of what she needs to do in order to become a > responsible adult, so, in a way, she's dodging the issue as > much as Ron is. > > I'm sure at the Ball Hermione felt as if she'd sailed right past the > awkward transition from girl to woman without ever going > through it. But that's not the real her, not yet. She was pretending > that night. Whether you think she's fourteen or fifteen, she > couldn't keep up the illusion for very long. "Standing ten feet > apart, they were bellowing at each other, each scarlet in the > face"..."her hair was coming down now out of its elegant bun and > her face was screwed up in anger." That's JKR showing us > Hermione isn't quite up to her image. > > I feel bad for Viktor. There's a real potential for Hermione to hurt > him. I don't think she's leading him on deliberately, but she's too > young and inexperienced, IMO, to realize she might be doing it > inadvertently. > > > Pippin Ah.... Viktor. I was disturbed about Viktor and Hermione, myself. I know my parents would have kicked up a fit over such a relationship when I was 14/15. However, it occured to me later that Viktor really doesn't fit in to our ideas of dating, love, and sex. The revelation came while reading "Les Miserables" for the first time. I didn't quite get into the book till Marius Pontmercy entered. Within minutes, I was enchanted by his silliness, and suddenly I thought, "My God! This is Viktor Krum! Krum is supposed to be a bloody 19th century romantic, not a creep with a penchant for younger girls! And, that's why it's "Drumstrang." So, if Krum fits the mode, he probably worships Hermione purely with the idiot-puppy-dog style of Marius and the rest. But Hermione is no Cosette. I see trouble ahead. Eileen From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Thu Jun 6 23:48:35 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 16:48:35 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] 1980 being Harry Potter's Birthyear (short) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <15510452232.20020606164835@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39516 Thursday, June 6, 2002, 3:04:51 PM, usergoogol wrote: u> I don't, however, think that the 1980 chronology is completely u> wrong. After all, 1994 and 1995 are pretty close. I think that the u> whole matter is very delicate though, and that there is no purely u> failsafe timeline theory. (This one is ideal for the time being u> though.) I stand by my theory that the Wizard and Muggle calanders are off by a few years, if only because I still believe that _POA_ *has* to happen in 1998 (Muggle time), when there's a full moon on a Thursday in early June! -- Dave From alina at distantplace.net Thu Jun 6 23:49:31 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 19:49:31 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] 1980 being Harry Potter's Birthyear (short) References: <15510452232.20020606164835@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <005f01c20db4$ce9d87e0$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39517 ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave Hardenbrook Thursday, June 6, 2002, 3:04:51 PM, usergoogol wrote: u> I don't, however, think that the 1980 chronology is completely u> wrong. After all, 1994 and 1995 are pretty close. I think that the u> whole matter is very delicate though, and that there is no purely u> failsafe timeline theory. (This one is ideal for the time being u> though.) I think it's simply the case of Rowling taking more time writing each book than the span of the books themselves. If it took her precisely one book per year and I bet the timeline wouldn't get confused and little details like the Playstation wouldn't be out of whack. Alina. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.368 / Virus Database: 204 - Release Date: 29/05/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Thu Jun 6 23:50:57 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 23:50:57 -0000 Subject: A Taste of Moody, With A Big Scoop of Krum and Karkaroff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39518 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: Cindy wrote: > So tell me. Why is it that no one crushes on Quiddich Star Victor > Krum? Why is it that the women don't hurl themselves forward to > fall at Victor's duck feet, pledging to help him learn to stand up > straight? Because Krum is so 19th century, perhaps, but I actually think that the truth is far less appealing. > > Then we have Karkaroff. Karkaroff spent time in Azkaban, just like > Sirius, and turned traitor to his friends, just like Snape. > Karkaroff takes a beating, too. The Dark Mark burns on his arm, > causes him to panic and show far more concern than Snape. Karkaroff > also gets intimidated by Fake Moody, just like Snape. Then, > Karkaroff is slammed into a tree by a giant, his "feet dangling in > midair," Hagrid's fist at his throat, finally sliding down the tree > trunk to "huddle at its roots." At the end of GoF, Karkaroff is on > the run, fleeing for his very life. Poor Igor! > > So why don't the women folk around here fall all over each other for > the chance to pluck the twigs and leaves from Karkaroff's silver > hair? While I don't see anyone crushing on Karkaroff under any circumstances, may I point out that both of them are Eastern Europeans. People read HP to crush on those stiff upper-lip English, imho, and ignore the poor Slavs. I think that we enter into a mode of xenophobia, whatever our own background (mine isn't English) represented by Ron and Hagrid, but running throughout the whole thing. "The English are so nice" by D.H. Laurence was the feeling the QWC gave me at any rate, with Fudge and Bagman's dismissiveness of the Bulgarian delegation etc. The English are so nice so awfully nice they are the nicest people in the world. And what's more, they're very nice about being nice about your being nice as well! If you're not nice they soon make you feel it. Americans and French and Germans and so on they're all very well but they're not really nice, you know. They're not nice in our sense of the word, are they now? That's why one doesn't have to take them seriously. We must be nice to them, of course, of course, naturally. But it doesn't really matter what you say to them, they don't really understand you can just say anything to them: be nice, you know, just nice but you must never take them seriously, they wouldn't understand, just be nice, you know! Oh, fairly nice, not too nice of course, they take advantage but nice enough, just nice enough to let them feel they're not quite as nice as they might be. Am I imagining things, or do I see this in the Potterverse? > So. Any takers for a slice of Karkaroff or Krum? Krum, I'll take. He's an age-appropriate crush for me, actually. I'll pass up on Karkaroff. > Cindy (who may have to start a support group for women who are > willing to crush on some of the less obvious crush objects in the > books, as there is far less competition for their affection) Go Cindy! And remember that Crouch Sr. is definitely dead sexy. (C.R.A.B.C.U.S.T.A.R.D) Eileen From dicentra at xmission.com Fri Jun 7 00:00:04 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 00:00:04 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Another Flying Hedgehog Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39519 Dicentra is awakened from a much-needed nap by a tremendous commotion on the beach. Elkins, Cindy, Pippin, and Pip are playing catch with a couple of flying hedgehogs: Evil!Lupin and Evil!McGonagall. Poor things are scared out of their minds, and they have rolled themselves into tight balls. But the women are shrieking with laughter and paying no mind to the havoc they wreak as they thoughtlessly topple kiosks, folding recliners, sand castles, and not a few can(n)ons as they toss and catch with all gusto. Dicentra is inclined to give them a piece of her mind for waking her up, but she knows that Cindy has a new, reinforced paddle, @=====()))) Elkins is Not Someone You Mess With, and Pip and Pippin have forged their own reputations as LOONs... <@ /___' ... and formidable CARPers. After all, Pippin literally *invented* the term FLINT, and Pip conjured the dog Prank. Nope. There is definitely no Beating Them. So Dicentra decides to Join Them: Sirius Black Is Ever So Evil. No, really. But not in the sense that he was made out to be in PoA. Sirius is Evil for reasons no one suspected. He's not Voldemort's servant, and he's not out to kill Harry. He's the grandson of the Dark Wizard Grindelwald, and he's going to avenge his grandfather's defeat and Rule the World, just as his grandfather attempted to do before Dumbledore stopped him. This is how it works: Sirius's mother, Andromeda Grindelwald Black, joins the Death Eaters right at the beginning of Voldemort's Reign of Terror. She figures that since Voldemort is gunning for Dumbledore to begin with, he'd make a good ally. If she herself can't get Dumbledore, maybe one of the other DEs will, and that is fine with her. But it isn't long before Andromeda discovers that Voldemort is actually *afraid* of Dumbledore. What an idiot! she thinks. How are you supposed to defeat someone you're afraid of? But before Andromeda can bow out of the DEs and strike out on her own, she's ambushed by an Auror and AK'ed. Enter Sirius. Enraged at his mother's death and determined to carry out her mission, Sirius decides to take the opposite tack. Instead of fighting *with* Voldemort, he joins Dumbledore's side and fights against him. After all, when he takes over the world, he can't very well have Voldie and Co. challenging his rule, can he? Perceiving that Dumbledore is the stronger of the two foes, he's counting on Dumbledore to eliminate his rival for him. Then as part of Dumbledore's trusted inner circle, Sirius will be in the perfect position to kill Dumbledore when he least expects it. Elkins, Cindy, Pip, and Pippin have stopped playing catch and are staring at Dicentra in disbelief. Where the sam hill did *that* come from? "Aren't you the one who's always sticking up for Sirius?" asks Pippin. "Yes," answers Dicentra. "That's why I've discovered that he's Ever So Evil. I can't bear to have him be out of style." "Uh, do you think you could cite a little canon there?" says Cindy, fingering the yellow flag in her back pocket. Dicentra grows visibly paler. She begins to back away slowly. "For example, maybe you could explain some of Sirius's actual actions in light of this theory," suggests Pip. Dicentra brightens, but only a little. OK. Sirius is determined to go deeeeeeep undercover for his mission. He goes through Hogwarts as a normal student and pretends to befriend James, Remus, and Peter, whom he plans to use to his own advantage. But then there's young Severus Snape, who has this nasty habit of putting two and two together. Snape isn't fooled at all by Sirius's amateur attempts to Be Good. No, there's something phony about the way Sirius compliments Dumbledore's choice of hat or robe. Snape begins to dig into Sirius's background and discovers his heritage. Two plus two is four, and Snape is sitting in the catbird seat. He threatens to tell Dumbledore, but Sirius convinces him to keep his mouth shut if Sirius tells him where Lupin goes every month. So Sirius tells him about the knot on the Whomping Willow, and the rest is history. Yes, Sirius *was* trying to kill Snape, but that goody-goody James had to interfere. Sirius vows to get back at James someday, but he's patient. He can wait. If he kills him now, it will be too easy to trace him to the crime. So finally his chance comes. Voldemort targets James and Lily, and Sirius persuades James to use him as his Secret-Keeper. But there is no last-minute switch. Sirius, who is on to Peter's little double life, *accidentally* lets it slip that he still hasn't learned how to throw off Imperius. Peter tells Voldemort where Sirius is, and Voldemort "forces" him to divulge the secret. But unfortunately for Sirius, he also has an Evil Overlord moment and blurts out part of his Master Plan. Peter hears him say he wants James and Lily dead. So after the Potters are murdered, and after Sirius shows up and does his grief-stricken act for Hagrid, he goes after Peter to silence him. But Peter's had a few hours to think, so he both fakes his own death and frames Sirius for the 12 muggle murders so that Sirius can't come after him anymore. And it works for 12 years, but then Sirius finds out where Peter is, and PoA comes into existence. Dicentra looks expectantly at the four, but they're not convinced at all. "Excuse me," says Elkins. "But Peter confessed to having betrayed the Potters. How do you explain that?" "Easy. Post-hypnotic suggestion." Cindy pulls the yellow flag from her back pocket and winds up. Dicentra has to talk really fast. "Wait! This isn't a yellow flag violation, I swear! Post-hypnotic suggestion is a real-life thing. I'm not making it up!" Cindy hesitates. She pulls out her rule-book and thumbs through the pages while Dicentra continues. "Remember how Fred and George learned how to pick locks, muggle style, just in case it came in handy? Well, Sirius learned muggle hypnotism for the same reason. Because it's not magical, wizards tend not to know what it is or to guard against it. Sirius decided that Peter would be his designated scapegoat, so while at Hogwarts he planted in his mind the suggestion that when Sirius says "Do you deny it?" Peter would confess to whatever he was being accused of. And lo and behold, on page 374, Sirius says to Peter "You sold Lily and James to Voldemort. Do you deny it?" And like Pavlov's dog, Peter crumples into a heap and confesses. It works beautifully, because it's Sirius's word against his." Dicentra's face is flushed with the exhilaration of having actually used canon. "Besides, this theory explains so many things: why Sirius doesn't have a Dark Mark, and why none of the DEs fingered him, and why everyone including Dumbledore knows he was the Secret-Keeper, and how he could survive Azkaban (he had only dark thoughts anyway). We've got the additional bonus of being "outside of the box" as David insists we go. Because instead of having one be the scapegoat and one guilty, the scapegoat IS guilty. But not in the way people thought. Sirius manages to spin the whole book on its ear during the Shrieking Shack scene. Who's going to suspect that the guy who we thought was guilty and got cleared is really guilty of something else? Worthy of JKR, I say." But the four are still not convinced. Pippin raises her hand and talks without being called on. "So what's up with Harry? Why did Sirius invite him to live with him? Isn't his care for Harry a sign he's a good guy?" Dicentra's mind whirls out of control for a moment. Yes. Generalissimo Francisco Franco of Spain. He and his rebels killed the royal family but they spared the heir alive. Franco groomed Juan Carlos to be his successor. Trained him in the army, kept him by his side, taught him to be a good little fascist. Sirius is doing the same with Harry. He's seen the signs surrounding Harry, just as Dumbledore has. He knows Harry is Destined For Greatness. He wants Harry to be his successor when he rules the world. Better cozy up to Harry than to have Harry try to unseat Sirius later on. "Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer." That's Sirius's motto. "Um, didn't Juan Carlos institute Democracy about five minutes after Franco died?" asks Elkins. "Yes he did," admits Dicentra, "but that's Sirius's problem, not mine." "I don't like it," declares Pip. "After all, if you're going to say that 'It's all an act,' to explain every apparently good or innocent thing Sirius does, that doesn't prove a thing. There has to be a Crack. Sirius has to tip his hand somewhere. JKR has to tip *her* hand. Otherwise, you have nothing." "What did we have on Crouch Jr. when he impersonated Moody?" Dicentra shoots back. "His kindness to Harry and Neville was all part of a Master Plan. What clues were there in GoF that a first-time reading would have uncovered? It's like the movie Sixth Sense: you can't see the clues until you know the secret. But I've figured out what the secret is, so I know how to read Sirius's actions in their true light." There is a sound of crickets chirping. A leaf flutters by. "So where do you get the secret!" they say in chorus. "Grindelwald was defeated by Dumbledore," Dicentra says. "What more do you need? Now, can I play hedgehog-toss with you?" The four look at each other and shrug their shoulders. Then they look back at --Dicentra, who waits patiently for an answer From huntleyl at mssm.org Thu Jun 6 23:49:27 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 19:49:27 -0400 Subject: More about Ron, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hurt-Comfort and reader crushes References: <20020604001000.32874.qmail@web12308.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00c301c20db4$cb703cc0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 39520 Ahh..well..this was all ages ago...but I still feel like replying *shrugs* so sue me...I need to procrastinate about packing -- they're kicking us out of the dorms for the summer...I don't want to go back. They need to have some sort of like -- refuge here during the summer... >I don't see it as blind hatred. More like a jealous >rage. Temporary insanity, if you will. Did you know that men used to be able to relatively "get off" for killing their wives if they were in a "jealous rage" at the time -- presumably because this rage (at finding the wife in bed with someone else) rendered them temporarily insane. I'm not sure if this is the case anymore -- but it does seem a little..backwards, doesn't it? My point is, I don't trust/like/feel safe around people who *can* go into a jealous rage. And this temporary insanity shtick -- pfft. Yes, I did say "pfft". In certain extreme cases, maybe. But because of jealously? Pfft. That doesn't earn any brownie points in my book. People ought to have more control -- otherwise they are a danger to themselves and the people around them. It's only *right* that one must exercise a certain measure of control over oneself. >Why do you think it was slowly? Having been a >fourteen-year-old boy, I don't remember anything being >slow at that age. I disagree -- at least in my experience ^_^. *is good at disagreeing* >Emotions come swift, and furious. Um..if you say so. >I imagine he got up to his room, after the fight with Hermione, and saw his Krum figure. He remembered >Hermione's quip about "Who's got a model of him up in their dormitory?" GoF23. He did what any jealous, >hormone-raging, just-got-out-of-a-fight fourteen-year-old boy would do, he smashed it in one quick blow (or >threw it against the wall), scattering pieces all over the room (including under Harry's bed). Where does he get off getting jealous, anyway? I mean...even for him, his feelings for Hermione must seem a little -- abrupt, you know? Anyway, that may have been the case, but it also could have happened a *number* of different ways...my version was the way *I* envisioned it...It's probably pretty useless to try to argue either way on the sequence of events... >If Ron was in college, I'd agree that his actions were disturbing. But he's not. He's a fourteen-year-old >(read volitile, unpredictable, moody...) adolescent. Hardly the image of mental stability. Hormones can go a long way towards explaining alot of things, it's true. However, there is no excuse for the kind of violent emotion you seem to be indicating here.. What I've found is this: the good guys do get a little testy during puberty, it's true. But the ones who are prone to "rages" are likely to *always* be prone to rages. Of course, you seem to explaining this entirely different than I initially proposed...actually, now that I think about it, your version seems worse. The kind of person who gets so upset during/after a fight that he needs to smash things is just the kind of person, IMO, who is likely to hit you when the fight gets really heated...I don't see Ron at this stage yet..but since you mentioned it..I can definitely see the potential.. >The tone of this, on re-reading, is much harsher than >intended. Please do not take offense. I just really >had no trouble seeing this scene play out. I actually didn't pick up on the harshness...so I guess I don't take offense. >ish (who really hopes Laura might still talk to him after this) Oh, but do you really want to chance talking to *me*. laura (who has just seen a spectacular set of short plays put on by the Drama May Term kids and is still sporadically shivering with delight..) P.S. my dormmates are *wonderful*. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From suzchiles at pobox.com Fri Jun 7 00:17:13 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 17:17:13 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Foreshadowing in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: <000f01c20d9e$9760e9e0$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39521 > -----Original Message----- > From: Alina [mailto:alina at distantplace.net] > Unicorns are dying in book 1. If I'm not mistaken, Cedric's wand > contains Unicorn hair, right? And as many have mentioned, so does > Ron's. And the centaurs said it's always the innocent that die > first and Cedric was among the first to die from Voldemort's > return. There ya go, foreshadowing right there. I have no canon to back me, but I would be VERY surprised if Ollivander were out there killing unicorns to obtain a unicorn hair. Talk about a wand for a evil wizard ... containing the hair of a unicorn that was killed for a strand of unicorn hair. More likely, I would propose, is that Ollivander visits magical forests during the time of year when unicorns shed a bit and picks up these stray hairs. Zo From alina at distantplace.net Fri Jun 7 00:24:44 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 20:24:44 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Foreshadowing in Harry Potter References: Message-ID: <007f01c20db9$b9da5680$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39522 > I have no canon to back me, but I would be VERY surprised if Ollivander were > out there killing unicorns to obtain a unicorn hair. Talk about a wand for a > evil wizard ... containing the hair of a unicorn that was killed for a > strand of unicorn hair. > > More likely, I would propose, is that Ollivander visits magical forests > during the time of year when unicorns shed a bit and picks up these stray > hairs. > > Zo *blinks* did I mention something about Ollivander killing unicorns? I just drew a long-ago-drawn parallel between a unicorn dying in book 1 and a unicorn-wand-wielding student dying in book 4. The fact that they're both innocent victims of the same guy. I said nothing about it having anything to do with Ollivander. Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ "I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.368 / Virus Database: 204 - Release Date: 29/05/2002 From suzchiles at pobox.com Fri Jun 7 00:22:33 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 17:22:33 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Foreshadowing in Harry Potter In-Reply-To: <007f01c20db9$b9da5680$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39523 > -----Original Message----- > *blinks* did I mention something about Ollivander killing unicorns? I just > drew a long-ago-drawn parallel between a unicorn dying in book 1 and a > unicorn-wand-wielding student dying in book 4. The fact that they're both > innocent victims of the same guy. I said nothing about it having > anything to > do with Ollivander. I must have misread. The first sentence in your post mentioned killing unicorns. The second sentence talked about unicorn hairs in wands. I assumed you intended a connection. Zo From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Fri Jun 7 00:59:47 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 00:59:47 -0000 Subject: House guess (WAS Re: Unanswered questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39524 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > Now for my question: What house is prefectmarcus Prefect of? > > > > Amy Z > > All these malevolent questions, and his thirst for trying to find > flints instead of solving them surely puts him in Slytherin, don't you > think? ;-) ------------------- You say that as if it were a bad thing. :_( Marcus =================== > > *Grey* Wolf, who has filled his daily quota of smilies on this post > alone. From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Fri Jun 7 01:09:08 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 21:09:08 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] TBAY: Minerva McGonagall Is Ever So Evil! Message-ID: <2f.2868eece.2a3161b4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39525 I have to disagree that McGonagall is Ever So Evil and Ever So Lame. She is Deputy Headmistress, and she always seems to be 2nd in command after Dumbledore. She's almost always at the most important/secetive scenes. It's true that she doesn't know of Sirius' innocence yet, but up until the very end of GoF, only the Trio and Harry knew, and Ron and Hermione only knew b/c they were in the Shrieking Shack. Just my 2 knuts. *Chelsea* From JPA30 at cam.ac.uk Thu Jun 6 23:58:26 2002 From: JPA30 at cam.ac.uk (archeaologee) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 23:58:26 -0000 Subject: 1980 being Harry Potter's Birthyear (short) In-Reply-To: <15510452232.20020606164835@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39526 Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > > I stand by my theory that the Wizard and Muggle calanders are > off by a few years, if only because I still believe that > _POA_ *has* to happen in 1998 (Muggle time), when there's > a full moon on a Thursday in early June! Naive as it may sound I always assumed the action of the books takes place the year before they were first published - sort of end of year reports. This used to fit the 'one released each year' thing (of course no longer valid) quite nicely. I never even noticed the 1492 thing until I saw the Lexicon. But I agree that working to Steve's principal that this is the most likely. I always thought JKR (heresy I am sure) was not even be thinking about what *real* year the stuff goes on in (the wizarding world she creates is kind of timeless) and just put things in a [winces] contemporary setting to when she's writing. my reading, so have a go as you see fit. James (who has referenced too many books by the year of publication so looks at it automatically) From angelsound2001 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 7 01:26:44 2002 From: angelsound2001 at yahoo.com (angelsound2001 at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 18:26:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Unanswered Questions Message-ID: <20020607012644.89898.qmail@web10805.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39527 I haven't gotten through the latest digest yet, so I hope I'm not repeating anything. prefectmarcus asked: > (1) Why didn't anybody receive a Howler during > Harry's first year? Harry was unacquainted with them > until Ron got one the second year. They seem pretty > common after that. > Grey Wolf wrote: > < other tables and to older students (i.e. everyone > except to eleven-year-olds, who are considered to be > too young to receive howlers). When loud screeming > occured at the morning table, Harry just disregarded > it as another unexplained magical thing.>> > Sorry, but there's no way--I have to agree with Amy Z. that there just weren't any during Harry's first year, or else they weren't relevant to the story line so we didn't hear about them. The whole point of the howler is that it's magically magnified so that *everyone* present, like it or not, hears every word. It's supposed to embarrass the heck out of the receiver. If Harry hadn't known what one was, I can't begin to believe he wouldn't have said, "Ron, what the -expletive- *was* that?" prefectmarcus continued: <<> (5) If all the copies of "Hogwarts, a History" were checked out in CoS, why didn't the details concerning the chamber spread through the grapevine? and Grey Wolf, again: <> My reading of this has always been that all the copies are checked out *because* of the sudden desire to find out about the chamber. After all, Hermione complains at least twice during the series (no books handy, sorry) that nobody else seems to have read "Hogwarts: A History," least of all in its entirety, as she has--implying that it isn't often checked out. --Raven, who really doesn't have any answers or cool theories yet but sure is good at being contrary __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From porphyria at mindspring.com Fri Jun 7 01:47:36 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria_ash) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 01:47:36 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Minerva McGonagall Is Ever So Evil! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39528 Porphyria is puttering around Diana's castle, working the decor up to that perfect Gothic-chic pitch. She surveys the drawing room: squashy chairs and plunging draperies kitted out in porphyrian purple velvet, silver Baroque incensers puffing cheerily from the far corners of the room, leather-bound spines of _The Complete Works of Immanuel Kant_ gleaming in the light of the wrought iron candelabra. Yup, she likes what she's done with the place. Suddenly, an owl knocks at the leaded-glass window with a message tied to its leg. Porphyria bustles across the arabesque-patterned Persian rug to the immense marble sill, lets in the owl and unties the note. It's a transcript from a conversation between Elkins and Cindy who've been flushing hedgehogs from the nearby forest. Elkins has spotted something odd, something much like a -- Cheshire Hedgehog? Or is it perhaps something more properly feline.... Her missive concludes: << Minerva McGonagall. Foreshadowed As Ever So Evil From The Very First Chapter Of The Very First Book. >> Porphyria is overjoyed and promptly pours a long draught of Lavavulin into a cut-crystal tumbler to celebrate. She clutches her OFH badge to her heart. Finally someone has heard her Cassandra-like warning about Ever So Evil Minerva. And has expanded it spectacularly. And not just Elkins, as it turns out. Two more owls flutter in the open window. Cindy's says: << Yeah, I should have listened to Porphyria when she first started knocking back that Kool-Aid and told me straight up that McGonagall was Ever So Evil. I didn't *want* to believe, that's what it was. I feel like such a *sucker*! >> Thank you Cindy, you have seen the truth! Now I am vindicated! And even second-time poster Wynnde has contributed her own evidence, remarking: << If she is really Ever So Evil, then that explains the apparent lameness - she's just pretending to be mostly useless to lull everyone into a false sense of security. >> Oh yes, this is the only explanation I'm afraid. Someone give Wynnde a Flying Hedgehog badge. I mean really, McGonagall is supposed to be an important character, isn't she? She's the Deputy Headmistress, she's the kids' Head of House, they take her classes every year, she leads the Sorting. So why is shy so boring? Why does she not normally inspire any speculation? Because she's not supposed to, that's why. She's the last one we suspect. OK, eager to not leave even the merest grain of sand unturned, I'll add a few more of my own: In PS/SS when McGonagall catches Harry and Co. coming back from rescuing Norbert, she takes 150 points off of Gryffindor and gives everyone a detention. Isn't that a little excessive for her own house? Well, she's supposed to be stern-but-fair, right? Right? This is the same woman who has just given Harry that massive Get-Out-Of- Jail-Free card after his stunt in Flying class: a new, expensive broom, a prohibited-to-first-years seat on the Quiddtich team, and *no* punishment whatsoever for disobeying Hooch. Hmm, I'd say she can be Stern-but-Unfair when it suits her agenda, like getting Harry on a broom where Quirrell can get to him. So perhaps this spate of detentions has a hidden agenda too, maybe she was just waiting for her chance to send Harry on a fool's mission. After all, what do those kids wind up doing to work off their punishment? Yup, they go straight to the forbidden forest. Now, I wonder who engineered that one? If she was in league with Quirrell then she could have anticipated the deaths of the unicorns. Maybe she just waited for Hagrid to complain about it and suggested the perfect way for the kids to spend their detention. After all, Hagrid is pretty easily led. And he doesn't understand the danger that the Forest possesses, much less that it's a parasitic Lord Voldemort slurping unicorn blood. With Harry protected only by the unsuspecting Hagrid, he would be easy pickins. Major setup. If only Firenze hadn't foiled her plan. Hmm, what else? Ah yes, in GoF, it's McGonagall that catches Moody ferret-bouncing young Malfoy. And she's shocked. Well, of course she's shocked. But not for Draco's sake. Minerva isn't afraid to yank the little brat around by the ear herself, or send him into the Forbidden Forest, but what's Moody doing here? That's right, he's blowing his cover. Or about to. In a big, ugly way. << "Moody, we never use Transfiguration as a punishment!" said Professor McGonagall weakly. "Surely Professor Dumbledore told you that?" >> See, if she's evil then she's been maintaining a brilliant deep cover for many years. She knows how to be subtle and misleading. She's good at it. But show-off Barty? He could ruin everything with this one. She sets him straight in no uncertain terms. And now for the extra-canonical sources that must not be named. Porphyria glances nervously in the direction of Elkins who has brilliantly determined this type of thing to be irrelevant, but Porphyria just can't resist. This is TBAY, after all. She settles into the carved ebony writing desk in the castle drawing room and gathers up the transcripts from two JRK chats: *** (1) http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm Q: Is there something more to the cats appearing in the books than first meets the eye? (i.e. Mrs. Figg's cats, Crookshanks, Prof. McGonagall as a cat, etc.) A: Ooooo, another good question. Let's see what I can tell you without giving anything away....erm....no, can't do it, sorry. *** (2 )http://www.comicrelief.com/harrysbooks/pages/transcript3.shtml Q: What or who would you send into Room 101? A: Cats - I don't like them and certain journalists. *** She doesn't like cats. She'd send them to Room 101. Scary. She must really hate them. And she certainly seems to have a cat-flavored plot complication in mind. So why is the formidable Minerva McGonagall a cat in animaga form? What does that say about her nature? If I were a cat hater (which I am firmly not) I'd say she might be sneaky, wily, blood-thirsty, shrewdly seductive and working entirely for herself. Herself and Tom, that is. Very suspicious indeed. ~~Porphyria, wondering if Diana would permit an Evil!McGonagall gazebo at the far end of the castle garden. From pennylin at swbell.net Fri Jun 7 02:15:45 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 21:15:45 -0500 Subject: Comforting!Ron; Sensitive!Harry; Hermione's Age (does it matter); and 1980? And Aha! References: Message-ID: <021001c20dc9$3b83dbc0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 39529 Hi -- Okay, I'm a few days late with this one .... but better late than never perhaps: COMFORTING!RON - CharisJulia said originally: <<<>>> I responded: <<<>>>>>>>> CharisJulia continued with: <<<>>>>>>>>> Me again: We're still at cross-purposes I'm afraid. You have a valid interpretation I think. But, I actually disagree that Hermione's focus is on the lie that Harry told. I think what she means is: "Your scar *did* hurt Harry and maybe you *need* Sirius, so it was foolish to lie & say you'd been wrong about your scar. What if Sirius changes his mind?" In other words, I interpret this scene as saying that Hermione was worried about Harry's safety & actually quite happy that Sirius was "flying north." She didn't focus on what might happen to him (Sirius) by doing so, which is what Harry's concern was. So, I think we're just interpreting Hermione's *purpose* differently, and I'd say that both interpretations are equally valid really. I've not ever seen it the way you did, so that was enlightening. Mind you, I still prefer my interpretation of course. I agree with Raven, who said: <<>>> SENSITIVE!HARRY: CharisJulia said: <<<<<<>>>>> She then responded with: <<>>> Actually, I'd say that Harry is quite courteous to the Creeveys, all things considered, and is unfailingly courteous to Ginny. I'm truly surprised the H/G shippers haven't ripped your argument to shreds. As canon support, I'd cite: ** "Ginny seemed very prone to knocking things over whenever Harry entered a room. .... Pretending he hadn't noticed this, Harry sat down and ...." (CoS, Ch 4) ** "Oh, are you starting at Hogwarts this year?" Harry asked Ginny. (CoS, Ch 4) ** Harry does refuse to sign Colin's photo of him ... and he checks to be sure noone can overhear them before he does so. Is this because if there were others around he'd be nicer? In any case, I interpret this as evidence that Harry is just trying to discourage Colin's hero-worship and to sign the photo would be encouraging him. (CoS, Ch 7) ** Harry's not at all rude to Ginny about the valentine (whether she sent it or not is open to debate of course) ** Harry and Ron's conversation with Ginny (CoS, Ch 16) -- I don't see any evidence of rudeness or shortness with her ** In the Chamber, Harry tells her "it's all right" and helps her to her feet (CoS, Ch 17) I could continue on in this vein, but since Ginny's role in PoA & GoF is so scanty & the direct interactions between Harry and Ginny far & few between, I think I'll just turn the tables & ask you to provide canon examples that he's rude or abrupt with Ginny. Harry *avoids* the Creevey brothers -- there's no denying that. But, I don't think he's actively rude to them; he just discourages Colin's hero-worship whenever possible. IMO, he does so with tact & grace. Dobby -- Why do you think Harry's rude to Dobby? I can't for the life of me figure this one out. ** "Er .. I don't mean to be rude or anything, but -- this isn't a great time for me to have a house-elf in my bedroom." ** "Not that I'm not pleased to meet you," said Harry quickly....." ** "Sit down," said Harry politely, pointing at the bed." ** "I'm sorry," he whispered, "I didn't mean to offend you or anything." ** "You can't have meant many decent wizards....." ** "Can't anyone help you? Can't I?" ** He's angry about Dobby stopping his letters ... but this seems perfectly natural reaction to me. ** "He blew his nose on a corner of the filthy pillowcase he wore, looking so pathetic that Harry felt his anger ebb away in spite of himself." ** Take a look at the chapter entitled "Dobby's Reward." Nope. Not a shred of evidence of rudeness to Dobby there either. ** Harry obviously was going to be happy to have a conversation with Dobby at the QWC, although "Dobby" turned out to be Winky instead. "How is he?" said Harry. "How's freedom suiting him?" ** "But you can say what you like about the Malfoys now?" Harry asked him, grinning. Need I go on? Nah ... this seems pointless. CharisJulia has more though: <<<>>>>>>> As far as trying to make up with Hermione, his actions in trying to make up with her do show evidence that he was sensitive to her feelings. He didn't try hard enough, that's true. But, he was not completely insensitive to her feelings. He realized that he & Ron were in the wrong & he at least tried to put things right. Hermione herself is somewhat to blame; her pride stood in the way of admitting her own fault & making efforts to get back on track with the boys. But, Harry's not completely clueless about his own complicity in the arguments within the Trio. As for sensitivity to others, I guess I'd turn it around & say why don't you provide me examples of when Harry is *not* sensitive to the needs or feelings of others around him. I think I've shown above that Harry is not insensitive or rude or abrupt with Ginny or Dobby (and only to the extent necessary with Colin). He tries to be polite but unencouraging to Colin, and IMO, this is demonstrating sensitivity. He could be downright rude to Colin but he isn't. HERMIONE'S AGE (DOES IT IN FACT MATTER)? -- Yes, Dave, there are some people who are emotionally invested in the answer for some reason, and yes, Amy, "helping out fanfic authors" is not a very good reason for wondering either. In my case, as much as I love Hermione, I don't much care either way, and I don't feel wildly strongly about any of the evidence. My gut feeling goes more with 1980 (younger!Hermione) ... but finding that bit of 1979 evidence in GoF has swayed my thinking somewhat. But on the whole, I'd say the importance doesn't lie so much with Hermione individually. The importance is more in wondering how the Magical Quill and the Hogwarts admissions process interact. That's the fascination for me. Again, it's *not* earth-shattering; I concede that much. But, it's probably just as significant as lots of other things that get debated but are far less maligned. :--) 1980 BIRTHDATE FOR HARRY? -- Steph asked: <<<>>> My first point is that [cover your ears everyone]: the HP books are *not* aimed at 9 year olds! They are not. JKR has said she has no target audience in mind. Do you really think that GoF, where Harry & pals are *14/15,* is really a book *aimed at* 9 year olds? I think the series will be increasingly hard to market as "9-12" frankly. The "kids" will be adults in Book 7 for starters. /soapbox [that was really an amazingly short rant for me .... ] A birthyear of 1980 means that Harry's first year at Hogwarts is 1991-1992. This corresponds with the time that JKR first conceived of the HP books & began outlining & writing the series. Even though PS wasn't published until 1997 in the UK, she was writing the first few chapters in 1990-1992 so it stands to reason that it would be set then. She also submitted it for publication in 1995, which is much closer in time to 1991-92 than it is now. I think it's important to remember that the series has actually been around longer than people realize. :--) *************** AND FINALLY ... I'd like to add *this* to my proof that Hermione means as much to Harry as Ron does: "I'm not going anywhere!" said Harry fiercely. "ONE OF MY BEST FRIENDS is muggle-born, she'll be first in line if the Chamber really has been opened --" (emphasis mine). As if his statements & actions at the bottom of the Lake in the 2nd Task of GoF are not enough ... *that* should do it. *That* is directly out of Harry's mouth (not the words of the narrator describing his friends). Triumphant!Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aiz24 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 7 02:45:31 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 22:45:31 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sneakoscopes (was Unanswered questions) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39530 >Grey Wolf, possibly motivated by loyalty to his ever-so-evil role >model Remus: > > > The sneakoscopes don't work at schools: Moody said so, and stands >to > > reason. The smaller versions of it aren't trustable enough. David, displaying truly Slytherinite cunning: >...and we are supposed to believe him? The sneakoscope is developing >into a running gag (Cindy, does this count as gadget foreshadowing? >No, I thought not.) > >In POA it goes off whenever Scabbers is around, so they think it's >defective. > >In GOF, Crouch comes up with plausible excuses for either disabling >the Dark Detectors or explaining why they appear to malfunction. >They are, of course, detecting *him* - the one clue which I feel even >I should have picked up first time around, not that I did. *light dawns at the speed of golden syrup* Color me clueless--I didn't get this the first, second, or seventh time around. I don't think I got it until this second. >So, really, I think Prefectmarcus' question does stand OK, OK, it stands. The thing might still be too sensitive to be useful (I've known smoke detectors like that), but I suppose the mildest thing that's set it off has been Fred and George putting beetles in Bill's soup, and that's not exactly background-noise dishonesty. So I'm convinced--Harry should take the thing seriously. He should also take it out of Vernon's old socks. And while he's at it, he should take out that pocket knife, which is doing him no good at all locked in his trunk, and keep it in his pocket at all times. Amy Z ------------------------------------------ The air was soon thick with flying gnomes. --HP and the Chamber of Secrets ------------------------------------------ _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From huntleyl at mssm.org Fri Jun 7 02:35:44 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 22:35:44 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] More on Ron References: <12481648676.20020603182908@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <00d301c20dcc$064a0940$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 39531 Oops..I meant to connect this to the last message..And, now that I think of it, I think I may have forgotten to put "Charles Engle said:" before the quotes.. Or maybe I did..*memory is gone, need more sleep*...either way, many apologies. Susanne: >Imo JKR has made it quite clear that this Krum figure >is a model, not a sentient being with feelings or a >voodoo doll, somehow connected to Krum himself. I didn't mean to imply that the doll actually *was* Voodoo (for the life of me I can't remember the name for those dolls)..just that..I don't know...It seemed slightly twisted (in the bad way) to do that to something that not only *looks* like a real human being (and one you know) but also *moves*...*shivers* creepy. >Honestly, let's look at real life here! If JKR had had >Ron seek out Hermione for a calm and collected talk >about his feelings, I would have put the book aside >and looked for something else to read. I thought I made it pretty clear that I knew this was unreasonable and unrealistic? I just felt that the level of anger he had -- it disturbed me. >And concerning my suggesting Ron should go and hurt >Krum himself instead of the toy (which I never did), I >meant that it is quite common for kids that age to >actually do stuff like that and I was proud of Ron >that he didn't confront Krum. Mm...says who? The only boys I know who would do that sort of thing were *very* ignorant "rednecks" from my old school...I understand that in more urban areas, fighting is alot more common and not confined to the less intelligent of the population...but the atmosphere at Hogwarts isn't like that IMO... And anyway -- what's Ron going to do anyway? "Hey, Krum..lay off my best friend who I do NOT like in a romantic way....I repeat, DO NOT LIKE." It would have totally blown his cover for one -- for two, he would have had to *admit* that his issue with the Herm/Krum this *was* based on romantic interest in Hermione. and BTW, I know you didn't mean to suggest that Ron *should* have gone and picked a fight with Krum... >Kids (and adults) do think hateful thoughts and that's >perfectly alright as long as they realize it's not >alright to go and do hurtful things to their object of >hate. This is true. Yet mutilating the image of someone is just a step away from hurting the actual person, IMO. It shows serious lack of control. >I don't think there's anyone around in the whole world >who can claim they've never thought about how they >would like to get back at somebody who insulted them >or hurt their feelings (and yes, Ron's feelings are >hurt here, even if Krum doesn't have a clue that he's >partially the reason for it). And this leads me to another topic...I really don't think Ron's feelings have been hurt by Krum at all..I mean, what's Krum to him? It's Hermione who has "betrayed" him. And yet, most (not all, I said, but most) of his anger seems directed at Krum *instead* of Hermione. Why is this? In my experience this sort of misdirection of anger means *bad* things. Once, one of my friends cheated on her boyfriend (who is also my friend) with another girl..She didn't *think* of it as cheating at the time, but afterwards she felt horrible and told him about it. Anyway, he was (understandably) upset, and he started to really, actively *hate* this other girl -- but things with my friend and him just went on as normal after a few days of him being quite put-off with her. The thing was -- even though the brunt of his anger/feelings of betrayal/jealousy was focused on this other girl -- the one who was had *really* hurt him and made him angry was his girlfriend...but he couldn't be angry with her -- and that's what really ended their relationship a long while after everything had seemingly been forgotten...the whole misdirected anger thing.. I've seen other occasions where misdirected anger can lead to much more violent outcomes..it's generally not very healthy. >How do you know what they do in private? >If Harry hadn't found the ripped off arm, nobody would >haveever known about it, either. Well..my friends *here* at least..don't really get too much privacy. If you're really upset and doing things like that here -- it's virtually impossible to keep it a secret. >And Ron may have even regretted later what he did in a >moment of fury, but we are not privy to his thoughts. this is true. >Anyway, I don't see Ron's reaction here as an abnormal one, >in fact, to me it seems pretty common. >I've worked with kids from age 3-17 in the past, and no, they >were not juvenile delinquents :) Well, um. I respect your opinion. However, *as* someone who is 17, I must disagree. Kids with that kind of anger are generally BAD NEWS, no matter what kind of hormones are raging through their bodies. ^_^ >Seriously, don't you remember your childhood? >Have you truly never been angry enough to storm off and >throw something against the wall or yell at your parents and >then regretted it right away? Still in my childhood, actually. *blushes* And..um...never really stormed off -- I generally stick around if I'm upset. Never thrown anything against the wall because I was angry -- and if I yell at my mom (which isn't often, but it does happen ^_~) I'm usually never sorry -- cause, uh...if it comes to shouting, I generally *mean* it. >Even the calmest kids I know have their moments, especially >when puberty starts to enter the picture. I'm definitely no calm kid...and I've definitely been very, VERY upset with people before..but I've never "flown into a rage" or anything like that. >And I think it would be unhealthy to teach children that >even *thinking* angry thoughts is "bad". >That can do some serious damage imo, because it's frankly >impossible! Very true. But acting violently in private won't, IMO, help get that kind of poison out. In my experience, you either have to wait those feelings out quietly (i.e. don't think about it...this takes experience, BTW) or get them off your chest TO someone. I was *completely* comfortable with Ron's actions toward Hermione during the Yule Ball -- he was a jerk, yes, and I wanted to smack him upside the head, but it didn't make me stop and go "whoa." like the whole doll thing did. >While Ron has a temper, he doesn't go out of his way >toinsult for example Draco. He react when provoked, >butdoesn't seek out confrontations. Yep ^_^. I think I said it before...Ron usually doesn't do things that bother me. Most of the time I think his temper is hilarious -- but that one thing just sort of upset me. >He already is pretty insecure (the way I see it) and while >he could try and do something about distinguishing himself, >this isn't as easy as it sounds. *Nods* Plus, there's always the chance that whatever he *tries* hard at to do to distinguish himself isn't good enough -- which would "prove" without a doubt that *he* isn't good enough...it's very hard to risk that. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aiz24 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 7 03:01:22 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 23:01:22 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] More on Ron Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39532 Laura wrote: >mutilating the image of someone is just a step away from hurting the > >actual person, IMO. It shows serious lack of control. I think tearing up a photo of someone is a harmless way to express frustration and anger at him. It's hostile, but assuming it isn't done right in his face, it's not scary. Not to me anyway. I wouldn't like it if someone deliberately tore up a photo of me, but I wouldn't think the perpetrator must be headed for juvenile hall. The model is more disturbing to us Muggles because to us it seems sentient--but it's not. There are *thousands* of the things, just as there are thousands of posters of an animated Krum, most of which end up crumpled underfoot on the grimy campgrounds, like posters at a rally. From Ron's (and Krum's) wizard POV, I doubt it is any more upsetting to see a moving photo destroyed than it is for us to see a Muggle photo destroyed. Likewise the mass-produced figurines. We could ask Rupert Grint, who is probably being chewed in effigy by babies around the globe as we speak. Amy Z _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From neilward at dircon.co.uk Fri Jun 7 03:05:28 2002 From: neilward at dircon.co.uk (Neil Ward) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 04:05:28 +0100 Subject: ADMIN: Reminder on quoting and snipping Message-ID: <007d01c20dd0$2e418640$943670c2@c5s910j> No: HPFGUIDX 39533 Dear HPfGU Members, A quick reminder to all on a few of our posting rules... When replying to one or more posts, please: - include text from the original message(s), as appropriate; - snip out any text that is not relevant to your response (particularly when responding to one part of a multi-topic post); - indicate clearly the name/nickname of the person (or people) you are quoting; - check that the message header is still appropriate; - put your name or nickname at the end of your message. For further information on quoting/snipping, please refer to section 2.4 of our Humongous Bigfile: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/hbfile.html# 24 Thanks for your cooperation. Neil for the Moderators ______________ Flying Ford Anglia From ra_1013 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 7 03:40:49 2002 From: ra_1013 at yahoo.com (Andrea) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 20:40:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: More on Ron In-Reply-To: <00d301c20dcc$064a0940$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: <20020607034049.60219.qmail@web10903.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39534 --- Laura Ingalls Huntley wrote: > I didn't mean to imply that the doll actually *was* Voodoo (for the life > of me I can't remember the name for those dolls)..just that..I don't > know...It seemed slightly twisted (in the bad way) to do that to > something that not only *looks* like a real human being (and one you > know) but also *moves*...*shivers* creepy. Yes, but remember that Ron has grown up with these types of figures and doesn't think anything more of them than we'd think of an action figure. Did it mean I was destined to become a psychotic murderer when I decapitated Barbies as a child? > And this leads me to another topic...I really don't think Ron's feelings > have been hurt by Krum at all..I mean, what's Krum to him? It's > Hermione who has "betrayed" him. And yet, most (not all, I said, but > most) of his anger seems directed at Krum *instead* of Hermione. Why is > this? Well of course he's transferring! If he were to admit that it was really Hermione he was mad at, he would have to admit that he liked her. He's avoiding *that* little admission at all costs, so he transfers all his anger to Krum. This isn't all that unusual, particularly for teenagers, and doesn't mean that he'll necessarily have deep emotional problems from it later. Now if he KEEPS ignoring his feelings towards Hermione, he might, but he managed to sort out his feelings enough to be fairly friendly with Krum at the end of GOF, didn't he? Even asked for his autograph. It was just a temporary spurt of anger, IMHO. > Still in my childhood, actually. *blushes* And..um...never really > stormed off -- I generally stick around if I'm upset. Never thrown > anything against the wall because I was angry -- and if I yell at my mom > (which isn't often, but it does happen ^_~) I'm usually never sorry -- > cause, uh...if it comes to shouting, I generally *mean* it. Ah, then you are an exceptionally rational teenager. I'm in my twenties and STILL throw things or punch a stuffed animal or pillow when I get really upset. I don't think I have any deep emotional problems, and I'm generally considered quite stable, temper-wise. But sometimes you just need an outlet for your anger so it's not released in more destructive ways. I've found that I'm more able to be rational in a disagreement if I've first vented all the purely emotional frustration by hitting a pillow or something first -- that way, I get to concentrate on the logical aspects of the disagreement instead of reacting emotionally. I think you're reading a lot more menace into Ron's actions than existed. Andrea (first post in a loooooong time -- I missed you guys!) ===== "Reality is for people who lack imagination." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Fri Jun 7 03:49:46 2002 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (arcum42) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 03:49:46 -0000 Subject: Lone Protector [and 13 at dinner] Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39535 elfundeb wrote: > I don't know about this. He [Sirius] certainly seems to be learning as GoF > progresses, but his letter to Harry, which stresses Harry so much, > implies that he decided on his own. "I'm flying north immediately. > This news about your scar is the latest in a series of strange > rumors that have reached me here... If it hurts again, go straight > to Dumbledore -- they're saying he's got Mad-Eye out of retirement, > which means he's reading the signs..." There's nothing to suggest > Sirius has been in contact with Dumbledore since Sirius is getting > his information from the rumor mill (the mysterious unidentified > "they"). Actually, Dumbledore states outright that he's been in contact with Sirus: '"You are not Sirius's only correspondent," said Dumbledore. "I have also been in contact with him ever since he left Hogwarts last year. It was I who suggested the mountainside cave as the safest place for him to stay."' So he has, as least, been corresponding with Dumbledore and taking his advice, to some extent. How much so is yet to be seen, given that he was going by the rumour mill rather then Dumbledore himself in the letter quoted... Incidentally, (and off the topic of Sirus), one scene in PoA that has been bothering me is on Christmas day, when they sit at the common table for dinner. Trelawney makes a big deal about how unlucky it is for 13 people to dine together. Traditionally, the number 13 being unlucky dates to the last supper, and when we are dealing with a scene on Christmas day, I have to wonder if a betrayal coming from one of the people at the table is being foreshadowed here. OTOH, it just occurred to me that Hermione betrays Harry about the Firebolt on the next page, so it may not be that major. Still, that seems minor for an analogy to Judas, so for reference, the people at the table were: Dumbledore, McGonagall, Snape, Sprout, Flitwick, Filch, Trelawney, Harry, Ron, Hermione, 2 extremely nervous first year students(one of whom is named Derek), and a sullen-faced Slytherin fifth year student. Lupin is conspicuously absent, as is noted at the time... --Arcum From brooksar at indy.net Fri Jun 7 04:33:29 2002 From: brooksar at indy.net (Brooks Rowlett) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 23:33:29 -0500 Subject: Apparate or die trying Message-ID: <3D003799.9030501@indy.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39536 OK: Based on the first book, it seems pretty certain that Dumbledore is *flying* to London. Just because you cannot apparate on or off of Hogwart's grounds, doesn't mean he couldn't, say, walk to Hogsmeade and apparate from THERE. So must we assume that as great a wizard as AD is, *he* cannot apparate, but must take broomstick or floo instead? Frankly I think the bottom line of all this is that JKR adds ideas as she comes up with them, and doesn't think out that there are certain logical consequences that would reverberate through her world... a phenomenon we have encountered a LOT in Star Trek, for example. And.... you know....? http://www.otmfan.com/ssclub/html/stopbook.htm http://www.otmfan.com/realaudio/stopbooks.ram -Brooks A Rowlett From temporary_blue at yahoo.ca Fri Jun 7 04:49:52 2002 From: temporary_blue at yahoo.ca (temporary_blue at yahoo.ca) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 00:49:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Muggles and International Wizarding Relations Message-ID: <20020607044952.77511.qmail@web14310.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39537 My name is Ann (or Northlight, or papillon depending on the context). I'm new to the list, and from what I've seen, I'm not even _half_ the fan that most of you are! I've recently been pondering a few things--and believe me, my poor brain can't take that kind of stress during summer vacation--and I wondered if anyone here could clarify. 1) Let me, for lack of a better term, refer to this one as 'Muggle Magic.' The HP universe seems to be dealing with a fairly Euro-centric fantasy form of magic. As we know, however, the 'real world' exists alongside this magical one. But what of those societies that accept the magical and supernatural? Consider the amount of societies who believe in supernatural beings or powers; and in shamans ("part-time religious practitioner who is believed to have access to supernatural power that may be used for the benefit of specific clients, as in healing or divining"), sorcerers ("practitioner of magical rituals done to harm others") and witches ("persons believed to have the innate supernatural ability to harm others without the use of ritual") [1]. What about Wiccans (who, I am aware, are _not_ HP style witches): "Many witches, wizards, druids, Cabalists, and shamans. . . practice modern magic in contemporary England and the United States, where their ranks are comfortably reckoned in the tens of thousands" [2]. Would HP-style witches consider this type of magic to be trickery or to have a rational anthropological-type explanation? Or would this be considered an equally valid form of magic? (I think it would be nifty to have a class on "Comparative Magic" if these other kinds are accepted as real. Might be able to use a "Philosophy/Ethics of Magic" as well). 2) How, exactly, do HP magicals manage to remain so completely incompetent in the Muggle world? It isn't as if they live _outside_ of it. Hagrid and Harry take the metro with Muggles in PS (Ch. 5); the Ministry car in PoA, though magical, is on the street with Muggle cars and drivers (Ch. 5); and seeing as Hogsmead is the only all-magical community around, almost all wizards would be living in or near Muggle communities. In GoF, neither Arthur Weasley or Amos Diggory seemed to be especially involved with the fellow Magicals in the neighbourhood: "Do you know whether we're waiting for any more, Amos?" "No, the Lovegoods have been there for a week already and the Fawcetts couldn't get tickets," said Mr. Diggory. "There aren't any more of us in this area, are there?" "Not that I know of," said Mr. Weasley. (Ch. 6) Their children must be quite bored without many other magical children around to play with. If they played with Muggles, I'd imagine being a bit more aware of how things worked. At the very least, the children must be quite isolated--unless long trips are made regularly (at what age would something like floo powder be safe for kids? What kinds of family transportation are there? Would working parents really be able to regularly chauffeur their children?) 3) The UK wizarding world seems to be quite tight-knit--they're always rattling off names of other wizarding families, and some of Hogwarts' students have some expectations pinned onto their last names (Potter, Weasley, Malfoy, Longbottom all have Old Magic Family Names, as well as many other just mentioned in passing). How large is the wizarding world as a whole? Thus far, we've only been exposed to one non-Brit Death Eater (Karkaroff in GoF). If Durmstrang is so taken with the Dark Arts, I'd expect more Slavic Death Eaters in Voldermort's ranks (although even the British Death Eaters were a fairly small bunch for a group that terrorized the entire country. . .). Exactly how far did Voldermort's reach extend? Was his focus on the UK, leaving wizards in other countries fearful while they watched but weren't directly attacked themselves? And if you look at the _entire_ world, Dumbledore was really the _only_ wizard that Voldermort feared? We saw that wizards can be patriotic/nationalistic during the World Cup Quidditch match. Does Muggle politics spill into the international wizarding world? Would real world language tensions in Canada, for example, spill into the magical world? Does racism exist there? Would any magical institution protest that there were too many magical immigrants around? Or is prejudice primarily based on purity of blood? Are Magicals involved in Great World Events? Did they participate in any of the World Wars? Watch the moon landing? Fear nuclear war? Is the wizarding world more united than the Muggle world? Are Galleons, sickles and knuts British wizarding money or do all Magicals share the same currency? Are they interested in promoting their nations (a magical take on something like the CBC, national galleries, etc.) or does magic transcend nationality and/or ethnicity in most cases? Was the Quidditch World Cup more a case of rival teams than any _real_ national sentiment? 4) Was I the only one who went: "animal abuse!" while reading some sections of the books? I do hope that they turn all those teacups back into turtles and so on. (hmm. . . Lupin and McGonagall both harass animals/creatures--they're _both_ evil!) And that's that. No need to worry--I probably won't say another word after all of that! [Ann] Works Cited [1] Richley H. Crapo, "Cultural Anthropology: Understanding Ourselves & Others" 4th ed. (McGraw-Hill, 1996): 340, 341. [2] William A. Haviland, "Anthropology," 7th ed. (Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1994): 599. ______________________________________________________________________ Movies, Music, Sports, Games! http://entertainment.yahoo.ca From nithya_rachel at hotmail.com Fri Jun 7 04:57:13 2002 From: nithya_rachel at hotmail.com (errolowl) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 04:57:13 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Minerva McGonagall Is Ever So Evil! In-Reply-To: <2f.2868eece.2a3161b4@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39538 Hmmm INTERESTING stuff brewing!! Seriously, Evil! McGonagall could give the plot just the tang it needs .. Lets see .during the first war with Voldmort, the one place that remained a stronghold for the good guys was Hogwarts. Maybe Voldmort tried direct attacks that failed. So, is he going to just give up on Dumbledore's castle - throw up his hands with an "it's just not possible right now?" Come on! We're talking about the meanest, most powerful dark wizard there is. What does he do then? Infiltrate of course. Maybe he setup more than one of his secret followers at positions at Hogwarts ? positions some still retained after his untimely downfall thanks to `That Kid' with the hope that it wasn't the end. (This would also explain why all of a sudden, Dumbledore's stronghold is fairly riddled with imposters. Dumbledore was too preoccupied when the infiltration started and has now been lulled into a sense of compliancy he may also be loosing his touch.) So now, we not only have the running gag of all those Ever-so- evil!-fleetingly-present-DADA-teacher, but also Ever-so-evil-longest- serving-staff member. (She must have seniority over Flitwick et al to be Deputy ? ignoring Binns of course) So now the second time around when Voldmort wages war, Minerva is in the ideal position to undermine Dumbledore from within ? and to take charge of Hogwarts ever so naturally as soon Dumbledore is either killed or even court-martialed by the board. So far so good and all the can(n)on unearthed by Porphyria, Elkins, Cindy and the rest of the gang are excellent. And IIRC she is described as Stern looking ? *not someone to be crossed* lightly. About the only niggle I get is: Why would Voldmort need Fake! Moody in the first place, since Evil! McGonagall was already in perfect position? Does he not know about Minerva then? Is she ever-so-loyal to Voldmort without actually letting him know she's on board? Why is she not in the circle with the Death Eaters or mentioned as absent? Are ALL death Eaters required to attend the call or are there some extra special ones that only meet him one on one? Errol, who agrees that Evil! McGonagall would be quite Bangy, especially the back-story, though Evil! Lupin is the more spine chilling. P.S- side note to Gray oops! *Grey* Wolf ..Please, pweeze forgive James!! I'm sure he was just being British and not changing the color of your coat ;-) From chetah27 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 7 05:26:24 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 05:26:24 -0000 Subject: WhyTheHowlersWeren'tHowlingTheFirstYear/ Rowdy Mandrakes/Chamber's Entrance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39539 PrefectMarcus asked: > (1) Why didn't anybody receive a Howler during Harry's first year? > Harry was unacquainted with them until Ron got one the second year. > They seem pretty common after that. They don't seem all that common, do they? Perhaps my memory fails me (and it probably does), but I know Ron got one in CoS he STOLE and CRASHED his parents car, and Neville got one in PoA because of him accidentally HELPING a convicted murderer...but I can't recall any others. And the Howler seems to be a very very serious butt-chewing, and reserved only for very very serious things(such as the two mentioned above). I don't know if any other students at Hogwarts have engaged in such life-threatening-because-of-stupid-choices, embarrassing, worth-Dumbledore-writing-a-letter-to-the-parents- things...And so, there wouldn't be any other Howlers being sent to Hogwarts. I don't see this as being strange...just that there aren't that many serious troublemakers at Hogwarts. > (4) If the maturing mandrakes threw a loud raucous party in > Greenhouse #3, who would be alive to tell the tale? Well, that's easy. I'm guessing the glass is sound-proof. That's pretty logical, I'd say, even though there's no cannon to prove it. You're raising Madrakes who can scream and render unconcious/kill all those who hear it- sound proof glass just seems like a must. The thing I've always found disturbing about the Mandrakes is the fact that they had to *chop them up* to use them for the Basilisk treatments. That just always sort of chilled me. > (6) If the Weasley clock has a "Mortal Peril" reading, why hasn't > Molly Weasley noticed all the times Ron has been there? Ginny would > also have been there everytime she was controlling the Basilisk. I have often wondered when the darned clock would come into play! But I think someone very well answered that Ron wasn't in mortal peril all THAT often, and that when he was Molly probably was busy elsewheres. > (9) Why is the entrance to a 1000+ year-old chamber hidden behind a > modern bathroom fixture? I don't think the Picts enjoyed indoor > plumbing around the time of Alfred the Great. Ever think that it wasn't always a bathroom? There's probably some pretty strong magic guarding it, and maybe that kept it so that it was atleast partially accessable. Also, I don't think old Slytherin would be sliding down a slimy tunnel every time he wanted to visit his Chamber(and besides, that entrance doesn't seem to be easy to get up). I'm betting there used to be another entrance for humans, and perhaps that has been closed. But the Basilisks private entrance wasn't, and Tom Riddle obviously atleast discovered it. You do have a point about how it was still accessable when that modern bathroom got put there... but I think you'll have to ask those other Slytherin's Heirs that went to Hogwarts before Riddle and see if they know anything about it. ~Aldrea From JPA30 at cam.ac.uk Fri Jun 7 08:36:32 2002 From: JPA30 at cam.ac.uk (archeaologee) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 08:36:32 -0000 Subject: Muggleness in the wizard world Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39540 Ruminating in my room I had a thought (actually I had several, but one is relevant). Harry breaks his watch in GoF (in the lake). Why is it not already broken. I hardly think the Dursley's the sort of people to give him a good watch and the wind up kind (if they are to have any accuracy) are highly expensive (and quite often will work again if dried out). The only solution I can think of is that it is a Digital (cheap) or at least a quartz crystal watch - batteries, circuit board and all. And this is working for three years in Hogwarts. Am I also right in thinking he has a torch (or am I just remembering that from when he was doing homework under the covers). We know wizards have radios (although they are very simple technology and could work from valves or crystals) so what else can they use. If a watch then surely a calculator, and from there to the library computer. Also while I'm on the subject. [inhales deeply and prepares to rant] Biro's anybody? Why on earth would someone with no qualms about wearing jeans and t-shirt under his school robes risk spilling ink under the covers (and the quill is bound to be scratchy in the hands of a young boy who has only recently started using them - I know I cant make them write smoothly) when he could just use a ball-point. Seriously, they could do that in lessons too. Ok I concede exams, where they have enchanted quills but that bit under the bed in 4 Privet Drive REALLY bugs me. I mean if you're worried about the look of a cheap ballpoint then get a better one, or use a fountain pen (they're just metal quills anyway). Grrr. Back to the technology issue, anyone got a good reason\cannon\imagination and can tell me about the watch (don't say it's been enchanted, that raises so many yellow flag issues), or torch or pens? *looks around at all the PG type people on the list in hope his faith in JKR will be restored* James (calming down now - and really hoping no-one will tie this to the pen issues he's just had in his finals) From joeblackish at yahoo.com Fri Jun 7 09:29:18 2002 From: joeblackish at yahoo.com (joeblackish) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 09:29:18 -0000 Subject: Doomed, they're Doomed! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39541 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jenny_ravenclaw" wrote: > > The other character I see as Doomed, even though he is not a major one > is good old Cornelius Fudge[...]I'm not crazy about > the job Fudge is doing now, and with his outright denial of > Voldemort's return, I can see him just walking right into his own > death at the hands of Voldemort or one of his faithful supporters. > How much farther can JKR go with his character now that he is so > clearly not supporting Dumbledore? I don't buy the Evil!Fudge idea. > I think that Fudge not supporting Dumbledore can go extremely far. One of my favorite points about the books is that good and evil and not as clear cut as anyone would like to think. Case in point - Snape. He's actually really good, but acts really evil. I think that the concept of someone being so blinded by their convictions that rules and order and whatever else Fudge values are good that their actions, no matter how well intentioned, end up aiding those working towards evil is fascinating. I that Fudge's refusal to see the evil in his midst and refusing to do anything about it could do a lot to further the complicated relationship between right and wrong, good and evil. I also see Percy Weasley falling into this trap. He screams of the type of person who could end up furthering Voldemort's cause completely unintentionaly, because he is so blinded by rules and order and what he desperately thinks is the right thing to do. Anyone else see From nithya_rachel at hotmail.com Fri Jun 7 09:29:47 2002 From: nithya_rachel at hotmail.com (errolowl) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 09:29:47 -0000 Subject: 13 at Dinner Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39542 arcum42 wrote: > one scene in PoA that has been bothering me is on Christmas day, when they sit at the common table for dinner. Trelawney makes a big deal about how unlucky it is for 13 people to dine together. Traditionally, the > number 13 being unlucky dates to the last supper, and when we are > dealing with a scene on Christmas day, I have to wonder if a betrayal > coming from one of the people at the table is being foreshadowed > here. > > OTOH, it just occurred to me that Hermione betrays Harry about the > Firebolt on the next page, so it may not be that major. Still, that > seems minor for an analogy to Judas, so for reference, the people > at the table were: Dumbledore, McGonagall, Snape, Sprout, Flitwick, > Filch, Trelawney, Harry, Ron, Hermione, 2 extremely nervous first > year students (one of whom is named Derek), and a sullen-faced > Slytherin fifth year student. > > Lupin is conspicuously absent, as is noted at the time... As is HAGRID!! Now, that makes me wonder...he's certainly around at Hogwarts for Christmas. why would he miss Christmas dinner? I don't know if the consequence of that 13 at dinner signifies betrayal. According to Trelawney, the one who rises first is going to die. Here the confusion as to whether Ron or Harry was the first to rise could possibly foreshadow a confusion/ mistaken identity scenario later on (at the climax?) as to who gets killed....you could still have the betrayal: Ron accidentally betrays Harry, realizes his mistake and dies in Harry's place....Ummm, or it could be vice versa!! Why should Harry be the Hero? (Just Kidding!) Errol, (Who realizes that there are numerous juicy theories out on TBAY, but is too muddled about the threads to specifically refer to them) From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Jun 7 09:33:50 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 09:33:50 -0000 Subject: Apparate or die trying In-Reply-To: <3D003799.9030501@indy.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39543 Brooks Rowlett: > OK: Based on the first book, it seems pretty certain that > Dumbledore is *flying* to London. Just because you cannot apparate on or off > of Hogwart's grounds, doesn't mean he couldn't, say, walk to Hogsmeade and > apparate from THERE. True, but AD might have reasons to keep the students from noticing that until 7th year when they're *of age* to learn apparating. Really, Hermione keeps saying "You can't apparate from Hogwarts" - because she read it in a book. No one says anything about Hogsmeade and it's questionable that the book was correct. House-elves do it all the time, though they never leave Hogwarts. > So must we assume that as great a wizard as AD is, *he* cannot > apparate, but must take broomstick or floo instead? No - I think he *can* apparate, but just doesn't. 1) how do we know that the place he was going to isn't *also* protected against apparition? Hogwarts is supposed to, I think that Azcaban is also, so why not Ministry? Diagon Alley might also be so protected. 2) We know that adult Weasleys can apparate - but don't usually use that ability. Bill didn't apparate to Ministry or he wouldn't have been so pressed for time - but he did apparate to the QWC. Fred&George could, but aren't allowed to. Wizards seem to prefer other forms of transportation, and only apparate when it's specifically arranged, or into their own home. What do you think would happen if you apparated into an *occupied* place? And moving Hogwarts-castle, lots of people inside... no apparition for security. Hogsmeade is fine - 7th years must have *some* place to learn apparition and gain their license, unless there's an unmoving place for it... like the Astronomy Tower. -- Finwitch. From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Jun 7 09:50:16 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 09:50:16 -0000 Subject: Sneakoscopes (was Unanswered questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39544 "Amy Z": > > OK, OK, it stands. The thing might still be too sensitive to be useful > (I've known smoke detectors like that), but I suppose the mildest thing > that's set it off has been Fred and George putting beetles in Bill's soup, > and that's not exactly background-noise dishonesty. So I'm convinced--Harry > should take the thing seriously. He should also take it out of Vernon's old > socks. And while he's at it, he should take out that pocket knife, which is > doing him no good at all locked in his trunk, and keep it in his pocket at > all times. Yes, he should. The knife *would* have been useful during second Task in the water. Although it's not clear that he could have kept the knife as it was when the Gillyweed transformed him. I keep imagining a scene: Sirius back in jail, waiting for trial. Dursleys learn of this via TV, kill Hedwig and lock Harry's things into the cupboard under stairs. They won't give him any food or water. Harry must sneak into bathroom and hope they don't notice - the stairs being alarmed... so that he nearly starves to death - until Sirius arrives... free to take Harry. Without the knife Harry would have died of thirst before that... -- Finwitch From JPA30 at cam.ac.uk Fri Jun 7 09:52:17 2002 From: JPA30 at cam.ac.uk (archeaologee) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 09:52:17 -0000 Subject: Muggles and International Wizarding Relations In-Reply-To: <20020607044952.77511.qmail@web14310.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39545 Ann wrote: > But what of those > societies that accept the magical and supernatural? > Consider the amount of societies who believe in magic > Would HP-style witches consider this type of magic to > be trickery or to have a rational anthropological-type > explanation? Or would this be considered an equally > valid form of magic? (I think it would be nifty to > have a class on "Comparative Magic" if these other > kinds are accepted as real. Might be able to use a > "Philosophy/Ethics of Magic" as well). IMO they sort of accept them, remember the bit about the ancient Egyptian curses on the Pyramids - that seems to hint at other cultures (albeit past ones) accepting magic, nad that this is seen as 'real' magic by UK wizards. I'm sure the Azande have real witches (but remember that they use witchcraft accusations as a social regulator and persecute people found 'guitly' so maybe more like the "middle age witch burnings" refered to so oftern) > We saw that wizards can be patriotic/nationalistic > during the World Cup Quidditch match. Does Muggle > politics spill into the international wizarding world? > Would any magical institution protest > that there were too many magical immigrants around? > Are Magicals involved in Great World Events? Did they > participate in any of the World Wars? Watch the moon > landing? Fear nuclear war? > Dumbledore defeated "the dark wizard Grindewald" in 1945, significant date eh? > Is the wizarding world more united than the Muggle > world? Are Galleons, sickles and knuts British > wizarding money or do all Magicals share the same > currency? The wizard money is made of gold, silver, and bronze. Other coins would count if they weighed the same. It would make no difference (similar to the situation in the age of pirates and explorers where Spanish dubloons and English soverigns were less relevant that the amount of gold they contained) > [1] Richley H. Crapo, "Cultural Anthropology: > Understanding Ourselves & Others" 4th ed. > (McGraw-Hill, 1996): 340, 341. > > [2] William A. Haviland, "Anthropology," 7th ed. > (Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1994): 599. Cool, Harvard references *feels instantly at home* Haviland is good, but a little too general for me, J G Fraizer's "the golden bough" along with others of his are early examples (the analysis is still used) and "Deadly words" by Faveret-Saada (witchcraft in peasant France) and there's one about 1980's London who's name eludes me, are all good (second year 4000 word paper on witchcraft becomes sudennly useful). Hope to have helped a bit (the Harry Potter Lexicon has details on size of population etc... where they've done the maths, also it's a serious piece of work that I - and I think everyone here - have A LOT of respect for). James (who realises his true nature as a social anthropologist has leaked out somewhere, still more hidden though) From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Jun 7 10:25:19 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 10:25:19 -0000 Subject: 1980 being Harry Potter's Birthyear (short) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39546 ~User "Harry Potter and the Ocarina of Time" Googol~ wrote: > In the begining of GoF, (supposedly in 1994) Dudley's Playstation > is thrown out the window. However, the Sony Playstation was first > released in 1995. (And England tends to get video games later than > the rest of the world, not earlier.) Trust me on this, by the way, > I know my video games. > > I don't, however, think that the 1980 chronology is completely > wrong. After all, 1994 and 1995 are pretty close. I think that the > whole matter is very delicate though, and that there is no purely > failsafe timeline theory. (This one is ideal for the time being > though.) > > ~User "Harry Potter and the Ocarina of Time" Googol~ That's not exact: the earliest versions of Playstation (PSX) were available to the public -in Japan- about halfway through 1994. Some time ago, some other people calculated the times and found that the timeframe fitted - but was cut close. There were a few games available at the time, too (but no Mega-mutilator). The weakest spot is that, even though Vernom is the sort of person to get an expensive videogame machine from Japan for Dudley, I doubt no-one would throw it out of the window after a month of use. Then again, it does fit Dudley. For the record, I would've prefered Harry being born in 1981, since it would mean he'd be my age, but I think that canon, although FLINTy in this matter, is definite enough to allow for the 1980 timeframe. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Jun 7 10:40:11 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 10:40:11 -0000 Subject: Sneakoscopes (was Unanswered questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39547 I, Grey Wolf, possibly motivated by loyalty to my ever-so-loyal role model Remus said: > The sneakoscopes don't work at schools: Moody said so, and stands > to reason. The smaller versions of it aren't trustable enough. David answered: > ...and we are supposed to believe him? > So, really, I think Prefectmarcus' question does stand > > David You're actually providing canon for my theory, which is that the snekoscopes are *too* well tuned: they will act at any sort of impulse. For example, Scabbers wasn't thinking of anything in particular, I'm sure, so the sneakoscope is just a tad too sensitive. In a school, it *stands to reason* that it would always sense someone being sneaky. Even if it was Evil!Moody talking, I don't think he told a single lie in the whole year (although I'm not 100% sure on this, I do believe that he liked double-edged statements, which are harder to detect than outright lies, since they're not *lies* as such), and remember that his gadgets were tuned for him, Evil!Moody, not for Real!Moody (the mirror, for example, showed *his* enmies, not the enemies of the poor man in the trunk. Myself again: > All these malevolent questions, and his thirst for trying to find > flints instead of solving them surely puts him in Slytherin, don't > you think? ;-) Marcus: > You say that as if it were a bad thing. :-( > > Marcus Of course not! Thise questions fit only in Ravenclaw (thirst for knowledge) and Slytherin, and the general tone of subversiveness I felt puts you (IMO) in Slytherin. That's not bad, if you want to be an evil overlord, be so, by all means (just remeber the 100 things you should do if you're one: http://eviloverlord.com). I'm a wolf. I like blood (especially when hot, and directly from the jugular). I'm not the one to judge. ;-) Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Jun 7 11:01:05 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 11:01:05 -0000 Subject: Muggleness in the wizard world In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39548 James wrote: > Ruminating in my room I had a thought (actually I had several, but > one is relevant). > > Harry breaks his watch in GoF (in the lake). > > Why is it not already broken. > > I hardly think the Dursley's the sort of people to give him a good > watch and the wind up kind (if they are to have any accuracy) are > highly expensive (and quite often will work again if dried out). > > The only solution I can think of is that it is a Digital (cheap) or > at least a quartz crystal watch - batteries, circuit board and all. > And this is working for three years in Hogwarts. I always pictured that it was a hand-me-down watch from Dudley, and a (relatively) good one at that: maybe an Omega, who works by mechanical only means (you have to wind it every day). That would suit the Dursleys: they woulndn't have to keep buying him batteries. Remember, Harry's clothes are good quality, even if they're several times too big, since they were dudley's. Maybe the watch is a little worse for wear, but until he submerged it for an hour in the lake it still ticked. > Am I also right in thinking he has a torch (or am I just > remembering that from when he was doing homework under the > covers). We know wizards have radios (although they are very > simple technology and could work from valves or crystals) so what > else can they use. If a watch then surely a calculator, and from > there to the library computer. No *electronic* device works at Hogwarts: nothing that requires electricity. Radios, we are told are magical. The torch is used only in the Dudley's house (and I'd imagine that the torch itself can be found there. There are at least three in my hoem alone, and if I took one during the night, no-one would notice). JKR has promised a "magical Internet" for OotP. > Also while I'm on the subject. > > [inhales deeply and prepares to rant] > > Biro's anybody? Why on earth would someone with no qualms about > wearing jeans and t-shirt under his school robes risk spilling ink > under the covers (and the quill is bound to be scratchy in the > hands of a young boy who has only recently started using them - I > know I cant make them write smoothly) when he could just use a ball- > point. Seriously, they could do that in lessons too. Ok I concede > exams, where they have enchanted quills but that bit under the bed > in 4 Privet Drive REALLY bugs me. I mean if you're worried about > the look of a cheap ballpoint then get a better one, or use a > fountain pen (they're just metal quills anyway). Grrr. The quills seem to work well enough, and Harry can buy them in Diagon Alley, without having to bother the Dursleys. He also enjoys the ink that cahnges colours, which cannot be managed with a byro. Another reason it that he's required to use Quills in school, so he'd better practice during the summer so he doesn't loose rythim. > *looks around at all the PG type people on the list in hope his > faith in JKR will be restored* > > James (calming down now - and really hoping no-one will tie this to > the pen issues he's just had in his finals) I'm not sure what a PG is, but Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who hasn't had this much fun in posting in *weeks* From jake_o_is_cool at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jun 7 10:15:43 2002 From: jake_o_is_cool at yahoo.co.uk (jake_o_is_cool) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 10:15:43 -0000 Subject: New Objects, Items and Spells Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39549 A lot of people have asked, "Why couldn't Harry have heard of or seen howlers before CoS?" and other similar questions. When we hear something, we remember it sometimes, especially if it's peculiar. Then, it usually crops up more often, and we hear it more often. Pleb. From drumforever at earthlink.net Fri Jun 7 11:56:26 2002 From: drumforever at earthlink.net (Betty Landers) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 07:56:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A Taste of Moody, With A Big Scoop of Krum and Karkaroff Message-ID: <3D009F6A.1FCE0095@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39550 Cindy and Eileen wrote: > So. Any takers for a slice of Karkaroff or Krum? Krum, I'll take. He's an age-appropriate crush for me, actually. I'll pass up on Karkaroff. Pardon the one-liner, but Alastor Moody seems to be missing from this post, I'll take a slice. From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com Fri Jun 7 13:14:15 2002 From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 13:14:15 -0000 Subject: timelines: right? wrong? why bother? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39551 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > but I think that canon, although FLINTy > in this matter, is definite enough to allow for the 1980 timeframe. There are several plausible timeframes, each based on a different starting point. The Lexicon uses the Deathday Party cake. Others go with the days of the week matching those in particular years. Still others use full moons or the age of the real Nicholas Flamel. Each of these starting points is problematic, some more than others. Only one of them, the date on the cake, is specific in the books. So that's the one that the Lexicon uses (my personal canon rules being what they are). It's not perfect, as you will see from the day-by- day calendars on the Lexicon, but it does work with minor tweaking here and there. It certainly works better than some of the others. But the point of the timeline isn't to figure out the exact years, not really. The whole point is to organize the events of the Harry Potter Universe relative to each other. That's where this really gets interesting. Here's an example. We don't know exactly when Harry's parents were at Hogwarts from the books, but with the timeline we can position them relative to Harry and his friends. That is possible because of knowing that Snape is "35 or 36" (probably meaning around the time of GF), as Rowling stated. We don't know the year, surely, but that does fix Harry's folks as being about twenty when they died. Whether they died in 1981 or 1991 isn't nearly as important as the fact that they were very, very young! That's startling, at least for me. How they became such powerful enemies of Voldemort in those few years that they were adult wizards is intriguing to say the least. I do love dissecting things like possible dates, possible locations, and hidden facts like the color of someone's eyes (No, really, I do). But more important in all of that is the overall scope of the world Rowling has created. That's what the timeline allows us to see: the scope and sequence of the Harry Potter Universe. Whatever timeframe we use, let's also talk about the whole interconnected history that timeframe reveals to us. Steve Vander Ark The Harry Potter Lexicon http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Fri Jun 7 14:06:09 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 14:06:09 -0000 Subject: Elf-Beater (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39552 Elf-Beater (from GoF, Ch. 9) (To the tune of Man Eater) Dedicated to Dave Witley Hear the original at: http://www.foxlink.net/~bobnbren/1980s.html#M THE SCENE: The campgrounds after the Quidditch World Cup. Following the Dark Wizard riots and the apparition of the Dark Mark, Ministry officials find a scapegoat. CROUCH, SR. (to WINKY) We're all searching here tonight For culprits who took flight. Villains who cast the snake and skull in air. End your debating! You've been found with a wand Don't tell me you're unaware! WINKY I's not doing magic, sir Winky ain't no bad saboteur We house-elves are mild, wee sprats tamed by the spurs of our masters Minding our manners! I did not cast the Mark, I won't bring disasters (AMOS DIGGORY uses a spell which proves the wand in WINKY's possession was used to conjure the Dark Mark) DIGGORY Prior `cantato, that wand must now spit it up Oh oh, here's the mark of a Death Eater CROUCH & DIGGORY Elf, do not stay mum, it's now time to `fess it up Have you joined with scum who are Death Eaters? HERMIONE (to CROUCH, with righteous anger) That poor little helpless elf You left her by herself You're selfish, Crouch, you have really ripped her world apart You're mad as a hatter Oh, our duty is clear, we must take the least to heart CROUCH (ignoring HERMIONE) Hey, elf, get you gone, I propose to give you clothes House-elf, you're now free, you're a wand-cheater Winky elf, you're done, watch out, girl, I've thrown you out House-elf, you best leave, I'm an elf-freer. HERMIONE Oh, oh, Crouch you grouch, you just chew her up and spew her out Oh, oh, Barty Crouch, no doubt, you're an elf-beater (CHORUS OF MINISTRY WIZARDS) AND WINKY (Oh-oh, there she goes, She's a wand cheater) Ooh, don't chew me up (Oh-oh, there she goes) Hear my cry, I'm an elf pleadin' (CHORUS) AND CROUCH (Oh-oh, there she goes, get out), I'm settin' you free tonight (Oh-oh, there she goes) You're now free, I shall delete her (CHORUS) AND HERMIONE (Oh, oh, it's the end) This elf is reviled, woo (Oh-oh, there she goes) There she goes, watch out, girl, watch out girl! (CHORUS) AND CROUCH (Oh-oh, there she goes) Get out! Get out! Get out! Get out! (Oh-oh, there she goes) Yeah, yeah, I'm an elf-freer (CHORUS) AND HERMIONE (Oh, oh, there she goes, she's been defeated), She's wailing and weeping, ooh (Oh-oh, there she goes) He's an elf-beater .. Gradual fadeout. Exit WINKY left. Exit all others right, except HERMIONE HERMIONE(spoken): " ..chew her up and spew her out." ....*Spew* ..Hmmm . Exit, deep in thought. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri Jun 7 14:09:00 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 14:09:00 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Another Flying Hedgehog -- Sirius Is Ever So Evil! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39553 A few hours of hedgehog volleyball can be a nice diversion, but this has gone on far too long. With the fierce afternoon sun beating down and the Kool-Aid jug empty, Cindy is nearing the point of total exhaustion. For one thing, she finds herself no longer able to tell the difference between Pippin and Pip. And for another, Elkins keeps spiking the hedgehogs *way* too hard and directly at Cindy's head. Although Cindy had once encouraged Elkins' first tremulous steps toward assertiveness, it was getting rather hard not to take *this* personally. Dicentra lies inert on the sand, oblivious to the battle that rages around her. Her arms curl protectively around a black hedgehog as she mumbles something about Sirius. Pippin kicks Dicentra squarely in the head, causing her to stir. Dicentra clambers to her feet, sand embedded into the left side of her face, her eyes narrowed with determination. ************** Sirius Black Is Ever So Evil, huh? Well, why didn't you *say* so? Dicentra is off to quite a nice start here. But maybe we can tweak this hedgehog just a bit and launch him into the air. I can't get on board with the idea that Sirius has been Ever So Evil all along. No, I think he really *was* a true friend to James. He was not in on the plot to betray the Potters, and he wished nothing but the best for them. When Harry was born, Sirius was right there, bringing a six-pack of butterbeer for the little tyke. When Voldemort came after the Potters, Sirius made Peter the secretkeeper as a bluff, just like Sirius says. Sirius was *devastated* by the deaths of Lily and James, just like we've always thought. Sirius really was in a murderous rage when he cornered Peter in the street. And you know everything that Sirius tells us in the Shrieking Shack? The stuff about being innocent of betraying the Potters, his escape from Azkaban, his desire to protect Harry? All that stuff? Completely true. "Uh, right," interrupts Pip. "The Prank, though. Get to the part about Prank!" "Prank has nothing to do with it!" Cindy snaps. "Just get *over* Prank already! Hedgehogs are *afraid* of Prank. It can *never* work, all right?!?" Pippin, however, takes an uncertain step toward Cindy and says, in a breathless voice, "But if Sirius is telling the truth in the Shrieking Shack, how can he be Ever So Evil?" Elkins nods vigorously. "That's right, you know. Sirius was willing to *kill* Peter in the Shack. Why would Sirius want to kill fellow DE Peter if Sirius were Ever So Evil?" "Oh, that's easy. What do we learn from Sirius in GoF that establishes his association with Voldemort?" Cindy asks. "Elkins, you should know this after all of your research and study of Florence theories." "Um . . . " Elkins began. "No," Cindy replied. "Not `Um.' Florence is Mrs. Lestrange, remember?" Cindy pauses, waiting for gasps of understanding. No one gasps. Cindy shakes her head in disbelief, her patience nearly exhausted already. "Look what Sirius says in `Padfoot Returns'. `The Lestranges ? they're a married couple ? they're in Azkaban.'" "So?" asks Dicentra, her brow furrowed. "So?" Cindy repeats, flinging her arms outward in exasperation. "This is the only bit of canon that links Sirius, a probable Gryffindor, to Mrs. Lestrange, a Slytherin. Sirius knew Mrs. Lestrange vaguely from their Hogwarts days, but he somehow *knew* she was in Azkaban, didn't he? And the reason he knew she was in Azkaban was because he saw her there with his very own eyes. "Now what do prisoners *do* while they're in Azkaban?" Cindy asks. "Wail, like the Egg?" offers Elkins. "Sob hopelessly, racked with guilt and wondering how they could have been so cruel and foolish as to play a Prank like that and unsure how they will ever make it up to Snape?" suggests Pip. "Talk to each other, bucking each other up, sharing tidbits of background?" asks Dicentra. "I know! I know!" cries Pippin, bouncing on the balls of her feet. "If they are Ever So Evil like Mrs. Lestrange, if they are fiercely loyal to Voldemort, they *try to recruit others at every opportunity*!" "Exactly!" Cindy says. "Sirius and Mrs. Lestrange, both having received life sentences in Azkaban, had to find some way to pass all that time. So they talked. And talked and talked and talked. Mrs. Lestrange told Sirius again and again about her trial before Crouch Sr. ? the sort of trial Sirius could only dream of. He grew to admire her for speaking her mind as they dragged her away, for having the courage to sit in that chained chair like it was a throne. Sirius started to *respect* Mrs. Lestrange, and they formed a bond. "And that bond caused Sirius to start to think that Mrs. Lestrange had a point. Sirius had always been loyal to Dumbledore, and look where loyalty to Dumbledore got him. That old coot Dumbledore had even gone out of his way to *give evidence* that Sirius had been the secretkeeper without troubling himself to come down from his Hogwarts ivory tower to ask Sirius what happened that night. "Yup. Now that Sirius has plenty of time to think about things, he starts to realize that *everyone* has betrayed him. Fudge keeps stopping by to inspect Azkaban and spends more time clapping dementors on the back than checking to see if Sirius is even *alive*. Crouch Sr. and his wife get special dispensation to visit their son, but Sirius hasn't had a single visitor in 12 years. Dumbledore seems to want nothing to do with Sirius. And Sirius is especially hurt that even his last friend in the whole world, Lupin, hasn't shown the slightest bit of interest in over a decade." "Sirius is a SYCOPHANT, just like Avery, isn't he?" Elkins whispers, her eyes suddenly overbright. "Shhh,!" Dicentra says, watching Cindy very intently. "But Mrs. Lestrange . . . *she* pays attention to Sirius," Cindy continues. "Oh, she strokes him good. "You're Dead Sexy, Sirius." "Do that Animagus transformation again, Sirius." "Ragged grey robes bring out the color of your eyes, Sirius." And he laps it right up, doesn't he? Before you know it, Sirius is on the cusp of joining up with Voldemort." "Go on!" prompts Pippin, her eyes wide. "Don't make us wait! Then what happens?" "Well," Cindy goes on, "one day Mrs. Lestrange tells Sirius that he is so slender and trim that he could probably escape. He transforms into a dog, slips through the bars to Mrs. Lestrange's cell while Mr. Lestrange is asleep, and gives her one long sensuous lick on her cheek." "Oh, ewww!" cries Elkins. "I think I'm gonna be sick! I mean, that is so *Icky*!" "No, it's not," says Cindy. "He *loves* her now, and he's just a dog anyway. Licking her face is his way of showing loyalty and all." "Wait!" cries Pip. "If Sirius is loyal to Mrs. Lestrange, why does he try to kill Peter in the Shack?" "Oh, that's *easy*!" says Dicentra. "Peter set Sirius up in the first place. No way is Sirius going to put up with *that*. Mrs. Lestrange doesn't care one way or the other whether Sirius kills Peter, `cause Peter screwed up and let Voldemort get reduced to spirit." "Now you're getting it," says Cindy. "Also, Sirius still hasn't decided that he will definitely come over to the dark side. Sirius is *smart*. He is going to play both sides as long as he can . . . until he is absolutely sure that Voldemort is back for good." "He's going to straddle the fence, is he?" asks Elkins. "Ooooh, I just love it when people straddle the fence!" "When *does* Sirius finally decide to become Ever So Evil, then?" asks Dicentra. "'Cause I can't *stand* the suspense another second!" Cindy sighs heavily and opens GoF. "Remember the scene in Dumbledore's office? Sirius lets out a `vehement exclamation' when Harry tells of Wormtail piercing his arm with the dagger. That's when Sirius realized that Voldemort was Back And Badder Than Ever. Oh, Sirius covers all of this up that night. Sirius is *smart* like I said. But he heard the conversation between Fudge and Dumbledore about how the dementors will remain in charge of Azkaban. He knows Mrs. Lestrange will soon be a free woman. So Sirius will play along, just waiting for the right time to strike." "Oh, no," Dicentra mutters. "It *can't* be true! I know I said I wanted Sirius to be Ever So Evil, but I was just playing around there. I wasn't *serious* or anything!" Cindy makes a sudden motion with her arm as though to grip Dicey's shoulder, but thinks better of it. There is a moment's silence. "It's too late for that now, Dicey. You know what you have to do. Hand him over." Dicey reaches down and scoops up the black hedgehog cowering near her ankles. Tears well in her eyes, but her hands are steady as she gives him to Cindy. She cradles him like a newborn and scratches him softly behind his ear. "Ah, don't worry, Dicey," Cindy says with a reassuring smile. "We'll be gentle with him. I won't let anyone spike him. "Not yet, anyway." Cindy /// <'<<<< " For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin20Files/hypoth eticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From huntleyl at mssm.org Fri Jun 7 14:07:45 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 10:07:45 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: More on Ron References: <20020607034049.60219.qmail@web10903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001101c20e2c$b275a700$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 39554 >Yes, but remember that Ron has grown up with these types of figures and >doesn't think anything more of them than we'd think of an action figure. Yes. I did acknowledge this fact in my original post...But still, it just bothered me, you know? I'm not trying to use it for evidence that Ron is an out of control manic (because I don't think he is)..it's just that that particular scene left a very bad taste in my mouth. >Did it mean I was destined to become a psychotic murderer when I >decapitated Barbies as a child? ^_~ I should hope not..Otherwise, I'm destined for death row..But Barbie doesn't really look like anyone you know does she? And you weren't really doing it in anger, were you? (actually, you may have..I just remember that my Barbie mutilation was usually out of boredom rather than anger)... With the Krum Doll -- Ron was hurting it because he *really* wanted to hurt Krum -- or at least that's my interpretation.. >I think you're reading a lot more menace into Ron's >actions than existed. Could be. ^_^ But..well..that's how I feel. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From drumforever at earthlink.net Fri Jun 7 14:24:45 2002 From: drumforever at earthlink.net (Betty Landers) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 10:24:45 -0400 Subject: Symantec Security Response - W32.Klez.H@mm Message-ID: <3D00C22C.8263227B@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39555 Hello All. I've just discovered that I'm infected with the klez worm (w32.klez.h at mm). If I understand it right, one of the many things it does is pick a random address in the address book and start send messages. I've included symantec's information about the virus in this message so you can take any measures or precautions necessary. http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.klez.h at mm.html -- Ron reached inside his jacket and pulled out a fat gray rat, which was asleep. "His name's Scabbers and he's useless, he hardly ever wakes up ...." Ron Weasley: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's stone, Chapter six. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Fri Jun 7 14:39:05 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 10:39:05 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry and the riddle of Riddle/Apparate or Die Trying Message-ID: <15f.ed4564f.2a321f89@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39556 Naam quibbles with my quibbles about descent: > Eloise: > > > > I have a niggle of my own here. I find it very hard to believe that > Slytherin can have only one living descendent. Surely the whole thing > with genetics and inheritance and stuff is that your descendents > increase with every passing generation? That's why so many people can > >trace themselves back to royalty. > > Naama: > > Yes, but lines can also die out. In the wizarding world, I assume > that lines can die out not only through childnessness but also when > the child is a squib. Eloise: Yes, lines can die out in terms of name , or inheritance rights, but not in terms of genetic descendents, I think. For instance, I am an only daughter of a father who had two sisters. My branch of the familiy therefore comes to an and with me, but my children share the same genetic inheritence. They are as much descendents of my grandfather as they would be if I were a man and they inhereted my maiden name. > > Eloise: > > > The only way I can see it happening (barring ruthless culling of > relatives) is that Slytherin and his descendents operated a strict > one-child policy for the last thousand years, which seems a bit > unlikely. > > > > Me: > > Not necessarily. One descendent may have several children, some of > whom die childless. Eloise: For there to be only one descendent, all but one in each generation would have to die childless. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From porphyria at mindspring.com Fri Jun 7 15:26:07 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria_ash) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 15:26:07 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Minerva McGonagall Is Ever So Evil! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39557 Porphyria has settled into a squashy purple chair in Diana's castle, nursin= g her tumbler of scotch. She is eagerly awaiting Eloise's return from that celebrity mass= aging gig so she can tell her all about the ever spikier Evil!McGonagall hedgehog, and a= ll the new recruits to the McGonagall flavored SUCCESS variation. While she lounges ar= ound, she gets two more missives: Arcum, on a completely different subject, has reminded us of the PoA Christ= mas dinner: << Incidentally, (and off the topic of Sirus), one scene in PoA that has been bothering me is on Christmas day, when they sit at the common table for dinner. Trelawney makes a big deal about how unlucky it is for 13 people to dine together. Traditionally, the number 13 being unlucky dates to the last supper, and when we are dealing with a scene on Christmas day, I have to wonder if a betrayal coming from one of the people at the table is being foreshadowed here. OTOH, it just occurred to me that Hermione betrays Harry about the Firebolt on the next page, so it may not be that major. Still, that seems minor for an analogy to Judas, so for reference, the people at the table were: Dumbledore, McGonagall, Snape, Sprout, Flitwick, Filch, Trelawney, Harry, Ron, Hermione, 2 extremely nervous first year students(one of whom is named Derek), and a sullen-faced Slytherin fifth year student. >> All the proof I need! See, I've already pointed out that McGonagall is very= actively trying to discredit Trelawney. This scene especially. ("Tripe, Sibyll?") An= d I too dismiss Hermione's spilling the beans about the Firebolt as anything even remotely = resembling a betrayal; she's worried about Harry's safely. So if McGonagall is actively = bristling at the suggestion that 13 could be unlucky and Arcum is right that this portends a= Judas-style betrayal by one of the 13, could that person be...Evil!McGonagall? Oh, perh= aps yes. Porphyria eagerly peruses the second missive from Errol, who posts a brilli= ant idea about how LV could have infiltrated Dumbledore's ranks in the last war and placed= McGonagall in the idea position to take over once Dumbledore is incapaciate= d. But Errol has a slight hesitation: << About the only niggle I get is: Why would Voldmort need Fake! Moody in the first place, since Evil! McGonagall was already in perfect position? Does he not know about Minerva then? Is she ever-so-loyal to Voldmort without actually letting him know she's on board? Why is she not in the circle with the Death Eaters or mentioned as absent? Are ALL death Eaters required to attend the call or are there some extra special ones that only meet him one on one? >> Because if McGonagall really is the infiltrator then she is *very* deep und= er cover and LV would not want to risk her blowing it. Even if Harry gets killed, LV wou= ld still have Dumbledore to worry about; he is scared of him, yes? So he needs her to sta= y in place until all is finally over. And these kill-Harry missions are dangerous. Qui= rrell got sizzled, Barty got stunned, veritaserumed and soul-sucked. McGonagall's mission coul= d be to just sit tight, observe Dumbledore's operation and not reveal her true self unti= l the final battle (hopefully involving lava and -- ooouch -- a catwalk!). And this would be e= xactly why LV does not mention her to the other DEs in the graveyard: she's his secret we= apon and there are some pretty dim DEs out there who might spill something like that= . Since she works at Hogwarts, she's probably exempt from being summoned anyway since s= he'd have a hard time apparating around. Plus, as I've suggested, she might have= been Tom's old squeeze; he probably cuts her some slack the other DEs don't get.= She could be extra special indeed. ~~Porphyria, contemplating a pet hedgehog of her own From chetah27 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 7 15:34:03 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 15:34:03 -0000 Subject: Muggles and International Wizarding Relations In-Reply-To: <20020607044952.77511.qmail@web14310.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39558 Ann wrote: > what of those > societies that accept the magical and supernatural? > Consider the amount of societies who believe in > supernatural beings or powers; and in shamans > ("part-time religious practitioner who is believed to > have access to supernatural power that may be used for > the benefit of specific clients, as in healing or > divining"), sorcerers ("practitioner of magical > rituals done to harm others") and witches ("persons > believed to have the innate supernatural ability to > harm others without the use of ritual") Now, I don't know alot about Englad and I won't pretend to...but I don't think there are alot of shamans running around there. Perhaps these are wizards in other parts of the world, as Ancient Egyptian sorcerers are really just ancient Wizards. [1]. What > about Wiccans (who, I am aware, are _not_ HP style > witches): "Many witches, wizards, druids, Cabalists, > and shamans. . . practice modern magic in contemporary > England and the United States, where their ranks are > comfortably reckoned in the tens of thousands" [2]. Perhaps we will get a comment about it from Hermione in one of the books, but I find that unlikely. You could say that such people are persons with magical blood in their veins, perhaps not enough to go to Hogwarts, or perhaps they refused Hogwarts. > Would HP-style witches consider this type of magic to > be trickery or to have a rational anthropological-type > explanation? Or would this be considered an equally > valid form of magic? (I think it would be nifty to > have a class on "Comparative Magic" if these other > kinds are accepted as real. Might be able to use a > "Philosophy/Ethics of Magic" as well). Well, I suppose it's quite possible such a branch of magic could be accepted. Fortune-telling seems to be(although not by everyone, as we see), and I wasn't expecting that to pop-up. > 2) How, exactly, do HP magicals manage to remain so > completely incompetent in the Muggle world? It isn't > as if they live _outside_ of it. Well, I don't know about that. They could very well almost live completely outiside of it, as they seem to know almost nothing about it. Hogwarts is undetectible to the Muggle-eye, as is the Knight Bus and Diagon Alley. I think it's very well possible that many old- family wizards *don't* go getting mixed up with Muggles. They do tend to very much keep to themselves, but as we see with the newer generations, mixing is becoming more common. Remember...I think it's Seamus Finnigan, but he talks about how his mom married his dad, a Muggle, and his dad didn't find out she was a witch until afterwards. So there was some mingling going on there. Hagrid and Harry > take the metro with Muggles in PS (Ch. 5); the > Ministry car in PoA, though magical, is on the street > with Muggle cars and drivers (Ch. 5); and seeing as > Hogsmead is the only all-magical community around, > almost all wizards would be living in or near Muggle > communities. Yep, it seems to me as though the two worlds over-lap at will. Hogsmeade is clearly stated as the only all-magical *community*, but I'm betting there are some smaller models of such scattered throughout the Muggle world. I've always taken that the way Muggles interpret Wizards is basically the way Vernon Dursley did in the first chapter of book one. He though they were freaks, and usually sort of passed over them with a bit of a scoff. And that was on a day when Wizards were being carelessly noticable. On other days when they might take precautions to keep themselves unnoticed, I doubt Mr. Vernon Dursley would have been so distracted from his drills during his morning ride. > Their children must be quite bored without many other > magical children around to play with. Obviously that doesn't concern the Weasley's, seeing as how their children keep each other company. > If they played > with Muggles, I'd imagine being a bit more aware of > how things worked. At the very least, the children > must be quite isolated--unless long trips are made > regularly (at what age would something like floo > powder be safe for kids? What kinds of family > transportation are there? Would working parents > really be able to regularly chauffeur their children?) > Well, I don't know if I'd rule out Wizard children playing with Muggle Children. I mean, when you're in your toddler/pre-school years, if you went up to one of your parents and tried to say that...I don't know, that kid over there ust turned that leaf into a frog, I don't think they'd take you all that seriously. > We saw that wizards can be patriotic/nationalistic > during the World Cup Quidditch match. Does Muggle > politics spill into the international wizarding world? > Would real world language tensions in Canada, for > example, spill into the magical world? Does racism > exist there? Would any magical institution protest > that there were too many magical immigrants around? > Or is prejudice primarily based on purity of blood? > Are Magicals involved in Great World Events? Did they > participate in any of the World Wars? Watch the moon > landing? Fear nuclear war? This is interesting, but I think so far you can only answer this with your own interpretation of the WW and how it works. Wizards are people just as we are(and some of them are from Muggle families and thus exposed to the same stuff we are for 11 years straight), so them feeling racism is rather likely. ~Aldrea, who is very happy to say that she turns 15 today. From ck32976 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 7 15:56:16 2002 From: ck32976 at yahoo.com (ck32976) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 15:56:16 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts, A History (was: Unanswered questions) In-Reply-To: <20020606155726.A31555@gtf.org> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39559 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., girl from mars wrote: > But! I also thought it was strange that they had to go to the library > to get it, as Hermoine has obviously read at least some of it already, > before she gets to Hogwarts. How would she have done that without > owning it? Is there a library in Diagon Alley that we don't know about? > > --marilyn, who is very excited about discovering a group of people as > determined as she is to discuss HP as much as possible. hi! I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure that hermione DOES own the book. I think she says something to the effect that she left her copy at home because it wouldn't fit in her trunk, because of all of the Lockhart books. I think that's what I remember. I would think that the reason that the others just check it out of the library and don't own it themselves is that apart from the chamber of secrets part, which most of the students didn't know about previously, it probably isn't seen as interesting reading. The evidence for this is that Hermione is always asking if anyone else has read "Hogwarts: A History", especially when people suggest that anyone has apparated onto Hogwarts grounds. :) I hope that helps, but I could be wrong. Carrie-Ann From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri Jun 7 16:31:12 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 16:31:12 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Death (TBAY) (WAS Dumbledore's dispensibility) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39560 Christi wrote: > Whoever said Dumbledore's death had to be violent? I forget his > exact age, but the man's well past his centennial. I could easily > see him dying of natural causes--it would almost be more tragic in > that way, to have nature take its inevitable course now, when he's > most needed. Who says Dumbledore's death has to be violent? *Who* says Dumbledore's death has to be *violent*!?! Is that the question? Bangers, that's who! ;-) Oh, maybe those SWEETGEORGIANS will stand for Dumbledore's slow, tragic decline, complete with the swells of an irritating, overblown John Williams score. Bangers want nothing whatever to do with this. We want a real nail-biter. Our FEATHERBOAS demand it! Besides, canon *requires* that Dumbledore suffer a mind-blowing, violent death. There's a pattern in the wizarding world as to how people die, you know. Let's have a quick tour through the Harry Potter graveyard and see how characters meet their maker. We'll focus on characters about whom we have lots of vivid detail as to how they died. James -- blasted by Voldemort, desperately trying to defend his family as the house collapsed around him. Lily -- blasted by Voldemort, begging for her life and shielding her son as the house collapsed around her. Frank Bryce -- AK curse: "His walking stick fell to the floor with a clatter. He opened his mouth and let out a scream. He was screaming so loudly that he never heard the words the thing in the chair spoke as it raised a wand. There was a flash of green light, a rushing sound, and Frank Bryce crumpled. He was dead before he hit the ground." Bertha -- tortured until "her mind and body were both damaged beyond repair" and killed. Cedric -- "Kill the spare", a blast of green light, and Cedric was "lying spread-eagled on the ground," his "open gray eyes, blank and expressionless as the windows of a deserted house." Crouch Sr. -- killed by his own son, but we don't know how. Transfigured into a bone. Mrs. Crouch -- knew she was dying. Ultimately died a short while after entering Azkaban. The Riddles -- AK curse, no other details know. Voldemort's Mother -- died in childbirth. Myrtle -- glimpsed a basilisk. Don't even get me *started* on the Bloody Baron and Nearly Headless Nick. Now, it seems that almost everyone rates a dramatic and violent death in the wizarding world. Only poor Mrs. Crouch gets a death from natural causes, and that is probably only because JKR couldn't think of any other way to sell Mrs. Crouch's sacrifice to free her son. Even Voldemort's mother probably left this world screaming in intense pain. When people die in the wizarding world, things explode, buildings collapse, their souls are ripped from their bodies, they encounter an enormous serpent at the wrong time, there are lights flashing and swishing sounds. Wizarding death is almost always *extremely* Bangy. In the face of all of that, JKR is planning a death for Dumbledore from natural causes? He's going to slowly deteriorate, scribbling out his will whereby he carefully decides who should get his Pensieve? I can't get that scene to Bang. Not even a little bit. I can't see death by natural causes. I just can't. No, even the AK curse isn't good enough for Albus. Albus is going to have to *suffer* a very inventive death right there where the Bangers can see it and enjoy it. When Dumbledore goes out, he has to go down *swinging* and everyone has to be right there watching but unable to help. Ideally, he'll save a few people on his way out, preferably Harry. Any cliche at all for Dumbledore's death is fine by me. He can be diffusing a bomb and can accidently cut the *red* wire, if you like. Just so long as Dumbledore makes an enormous *Bang* when he dies, I'll be satisfied. Cindy (who might be willing to compromise by allowing Dumbledore to be sentenced to Azkaban and have his soul sucked out, so long as Harry is right there watching the whole thing) From sandirs at hotmail.com Fri Jun 7 16:45:13 2002 From: sandirs at hotmail.com (Sandi Steinberg) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 12:45:13 -0400 Subject: Zoe Wanamaker Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39561 Zoe Wanamaker Vital Stats: Birth Name: Born: May 13, 1949 Birth Place: New York, New York Nationality: American Bio: American-born character player Zoe Wanamaker, daughter of actor-director Sam Wanamaker, moved at the age of three to England, where her father championed the rebuilding of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre in London. Not blessed with the cute nose or sensual mouth of the ingenue, she put her "interesting" looks to good service in repertory of the highest possible standard, performing extensively at the Royal Shakespeare Company and the National Theatre, in roles ranging from classical (Viola in "Twelfth Night") to musical comedy (Adelaide in "Guys and Dolls"). American audiences cheered her as Toine in "Piaf" (1981) and as Fay in "Loot" (1986), both performances earning her Tony nominations as Outstanding Featured Actress in a Play. More ... The source for this is Hollywood.com, The full article may be found at: http://www.hollywood.com/celebs/detail/celeb/188123 Sam Wanamaker was a famous US actor in films and TV. He played both leading man and character parts, but was probably know more for the latter. He was hurt by the Hollywood blacklisting of the late 1940s and early 1950s, and chose to remain in England for many years after making a film there. Sandi Steinberg _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 7 16:58:33 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 16:58:33 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Minerva McGonagall Is Ever So Evil! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39562 Pippin, Dicentra, Elkins and Porphyria are enjoying a lively game of hedgehog croquet on the grounds of Diana's castle. Pippin tries to line up a shot, but her dark glasses *will* keep sliding down her nose, and her flamingo keeps getting tangled in her FEATHERBOA. Besides that she is distracted by the sounds of Cindy down on the beach, holding her paddle in a menacing way as she moves in on Stoned!Harry shrieking, "Off with his head!" Elkins gives her hedgehog a mighty whack: >>>>Minerva McGonagall. Foreshadowed As Ever So Evil From The Very First Chapter Of The Very First Book.<<<< and sends it careening into Pippin's, which promptly spreads its wings, flies into the trees and sulks. Pippin attempts to coax it down. "What's the matter?" she asks, peering up into branches of an enormous yew. Pippin, like all TBayers, is an Urchinmouth, and speaks the mysterious tongue of the hedgehogs. "McGonagall's very first appearance in the very first book!" sniffs her hedgehog. "Lupin isn't even _in_ the first book! It's not fair!' "Oh come on! Elkins didn't mean a word of that nonsense! What did you think she was up to with the Cheshire Cat reference, anyway?" "I don't care! I'm not coming down unless you can find a hint that Lupin is ever so evil in his very first scene!' "Fair enough," says Pippin. She thinks for a moment. Dicey and Elkins come over to watch. Down on the beach, Cindy pricks up her ears. She hasn't had the heart to return to the Big Bang Destroyer since all those Lupin-is-evil can(n)ons mysteriously appeared on board. Pippin smiles triumphantly. "Piece of (drugged chocolate) cake! Lupin, in his very first scene, does the most sinister thing anyone can do to a child!" Pippin's hedgehog looks confused. "He does? But he's just sleeping. And then he drives off the Dementor, and then he --Oh No. No, no, no. Oh, how *could* he!" Now everyone else looks confused. But ever-so-clever Elkins nods appreciatively. "Of course. Lupin hasn't been properly introduced. They only know who he is because of the name on his case. That makes him a STRANGER. And he gives them--ohhh the infamy--candy!" "Harry took CANDY FROM A STRANGER!" Dicey cries. "Is he mad?" "McGonagall's very suspicious when she hears about it, too," says Pippin. "Remember when they're all in her office later? As soon as she hears about that candy, she says"sharply", "Are you sure you feel all right, Potter?" "You see? She's worried about Harry. As if she could be a Death Eater, when she's not even afraid of Dumbledore! Argues with him all the time. Waits around on purpose to see him. Ran Hogwarts all by herself for three weeks in CoS, and the world didn't come to an end, did it? Well, Ginny nearly got killed, but then Minerva's a Hermione fan, isn't she. She just wanted to clear the path for H/H. " Pippin's hedgehog sails down from the trees and nestles in her arms. "There, there. JKR would never encourage children to take candy from strangers who know their names without being told, of course not!" Pippin's hedgehog looks up at her. "Typing 'Pippin's hedgehog' over and over again must be pretty tiring for you. Why don't you give me a name?" Pippin sighs. Tabouli is travelling and she is ever so much more clever about these things...still, she decides to give it a try. L.Y.C.A.N.T.H.R.O.P.E. Lupin Yields Candy, A Nasty Trick, He's Really, Obviously, Perfectly Evil Pippin off to assemble further evidence of distrust between McGonagall and Lupin From alina at distantplace.net Fri Jun 7 17:28:07 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:28:07 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Muggles and International Wizarding Relations References: <20020607044952.77511.qmail@web14310.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001a01c20e48$b13b8fa0$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39563 ----- Original Message ----- From: temporary_blue at yahoo.ca 4) Was I the only one who went: "animal abuse!" while reading some sections of the books? I do hope that they turn all those teacups back into turtles and so on. (hmm. . . Lupin and McGonagall both harass animals/creatures--they're _both_ evil!) You probably were the only one *grin* Think about it this way if it makes things easier: the turtles were transfigured teacups to begin with, transfigured by McGonagall especially for the lesson. As for Lupin... well, he's teaching them defense against Dark creatures, right? Those cute little critters would give a lot to see the students suffer in their own ways, so I think Lupin can be justified. Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ "I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.368 / Virus Database: 204 - Release Date: 29/05/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From itskimmy at yahoo.com Fri Jun 7 17:40:50 2002 From: itskimmy at yahoo.com (itskimmy) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 17:40:50 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts, A History (was: Unanswered questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39564 Carrie-Ann said > I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure that hermione DOES own the > book. I think she says something to the effect that she left her > copy at home because it wouldn't fit in her trunk, because of all of > the Lockhart books. You're right, Hermoine does say she cannot fit Hogwarts a History into her trunk. >>'All the copies of Hogwart a History have been taken out,'she said, sitting down next to Harry and Ron. 'And there's a two week waiting list. I wish i hadn't left my copy at home, but i couldn't fit it in my trunk with all the Lockhart books.'<< (p112 UK paperback) Kim From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Fri Jun 7 19:12:34 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 20:12:34 +0100 Subject: Everybody Ought To Have An Elf (filk) References: Message-ID: <006401c20e57$47e181e0$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 39565 > I wonder ... should Stephen Sondheim starting working on Harry Potter: The > Musical? > > Zoe, a MAJOR Sondheim fan/fanatic > Just curious - have you seen the US Into the Woods yet??? That aside (and before the mods stamp on me..) I don't think Sondheim would touch anything before PoA for treatment. Not enough depth-plumbing, thought-provoking, anguish-ridden, excitement-inducing characters (or does than just sound like an old soft drinks advert?) Felicia Who thought the Elf filk one of 2002's finest. From Ali at zymurgy.org Fri Jun 7 19:31:24 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 19:31:24 -0000 Subject: Year of the Potters' births: was Re: Harry and the riddle of Riddle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39566 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" wrote: > > Tom Riddle was born c 1927 (see Lexicon for timings). Harry was born > in 1980 when the Potters were c 22/23 - so they were born c. 1968, > which makes Riddle certain old enough to be Harry's grandfather - > although it doesn't mean he is Woops! my maths isn't normally that atrocious honest! I don't know what on earth possessed me to put that the Potters were born c.1968 - that would only have made them 12 when they had Harry! Possible but unlikely. For them to be similar in age to Snape they must have been born around 1960 - which makes them c 20 when they had Harry. Ali who promises not to drink wine when doing any future postings! From angelsound2001 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 7 19:18:36 2002 From: angelsound2001 at yahoo.com (angelsound2001 at yahoo.com) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 12:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: sneakoscopes In-Reply-To: <1023425978.1751.73164.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020607191836.74956.qmail@web10802.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39567 Grey Wolf noted: <> David responded: <<...and we are supposed to believe him? The sneakoscope is developing into a running gag (Cindy, does this count as gadget foreshadowing? No, I thought not.) In POA it goes off whenever Scabbers is around, so they think it's defective. In GOF, Crouch comes up with plausible excuses for either disabling the Dark Detectors or explaining why they appear to malfunction. They are, of course, detecting *him* - the one clue which I feel even I should have picked up first time around, not that I did.>> Amy Z wrote: <> As David noted, Scabbers sets it off, so that could also explain the above example... Who knows? The beetle incident might not even have registered! --Raven __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From Ali at zymurgy.org Fri Jun 7 19:56:00 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 19:56:00 -0000 Subject: Muggleness in the wizard world In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39568 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "archeaologee" wrote: > Harry breaks his watch in GoF (in the lake). > > Why is it not already broken. > > I hardly think the Dursley's the sort of people to give him a good > watch and the wind up kind (if they are to have any accuracy) are > highly expensive (and quite often will work again if dried out). > > The only solution I can think of is that it is a Digital (cheap) or > at least a quartz crystal watch - batteries, circuit board and all. > And this is working for three years in Hogwarts. When Harry is sent to his cupboard after the "Boa Constrictor" incident in PS/SS he didn't have a watch at all "wishing he had a watch. He didn't know what time it was and he couldn't be sure the Dursleys were asleep yet." p27 PS UK paperback. However, Dudley was given a gold watch for his birthday - so isn't it perfectly possible that Harry inherited Dudley's old one (He must surely have had at least one already?). If he did get an old one of Dudley's, isn't it possible that it was an expensive wind up kind. Afterall, the Dursleys always try and give Dudley the best don't they! The Weasley twins have wristwatches, and as they haven't got much money, it's likely that you can get watches compatible with the Hogwarts environment relatively easily in the WW - perhaps this is too small a detail to mention which is why JKR omits it. She sometimes seems to have forgotten that some of her readers scan every word of her text analysing acts and occasionally finding omissions - or even FLINTS! Ali (currently thinking that July 31st would be a good day to announce the publication date of OoP if there is any possibilty that it is going to hit the shops later this year!) From Ali at zymurgy.org Fri Jun 7 19:56:03 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 19:56:03 -0000 Subject: Muggleness in the wizard world In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39569 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "archeaologee" wrote: > Harry breaks his watch in GoF (in the lake). > > Why is it not already broken. > > I hardly think the Dursley's the sort of people to give him a good > watch and the wind up kind (if they are to have any accuracy) are > highly expensive (and quite often will work again if dried out). > > The only solution I can think of is that it is a Digital (cheap) or > at least a quartz crystal watch - batteries, circuit board and all. > And this is working for three years in Hogwarts. When Harry is sent to his cupboard after the "Boa Constrictor" incident in PS/SS he didn't have a watch at all "wishing he had a watch. He didn't know what time it was and he couldn't be sure the Dursleys were asleep yet." p27 PS UK paperback. However, Dudley was given a gold watch for his birthday - so isn't it perfectly possible that Harry inherited Dudley's old one (He must surely have had at least one already?). If he did get an old one of Dudley's, isn't it possible that it was an expensive wind up kind. Afterall, the Dursleys always try and give Dudley the best don't they! The Weasley twins have wristwatches, and as they haven't got much money, it's likely that you can get watches compatible with the Hogwarts environment relatively easily in the WW - perhaps this is too small a detail to mention which is why JKR omits it. She sometimes seems to have forgotten that some of her readers scan every word of her text analysing acts and occasionally finding omissions - or even FLINTS! Ali (currently thinking that July 31st would be a good day to announce the publication date of OoP if there is any possibilty that it is going to hit the shops later this year!) From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Fri Jun 7 20:01:34 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 20:01:34 -0000 Subject: Muggleness in the wizard world In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39570 > James wrote: > > Biro's anybody? Why on earth would someone with no qualms about > > wearing jeans and t-shirt under his school robes risk spilling > > ink under the covers (and the quill is bound to be scratchy in > > the hands of a young boy who has only recently started using > >them - I know I cant make them write smoothly) when he could just > > uses a ball-point. Seriously, they could do that in lessons > > too. OK I concede exams, where they have enchanted quills but > > that bit under the bed in 4 Privet Drive REALLY bugs me. I mean > > if you're worried about the look of a cheap ballpoint then get a > > better one, or use a fountain pen (they're just metal quills >> > > anyway). Grrr. Grey Wolf replied > The quills seem to work well enough, and Harry can buy them in > Diagon Alley, without having to bother the Dursleys. He also enjoys > the ink that cahnges colours, which cannot be managed with a byro. > Another reason it that he's required to use Quills in school, so > he'd better practice during the summer so he doesn't loose rythim. > Could also be that Harry is not allowed to use Biro's for any of his school work. My (old fashioned) school wouldn't allow them - fountain/cartridge pens only, please. But I think that it may be one of several signals of how most of the WW has rejected Muggledom in a very big (and unhealthy) way, and will not use a muggle item even if it is more efficient. Muggle items are really used for camoflage. If a muggle (like the postman) did happen to look into the Weasley's house, what they would see in a quick glance would look normal. The magic radio, or the clock with twelve hands or a number of other things all require some consideration before you realise that they aren't actually normal at all. The key to this is probably found in the fact that JKR has been extremely careful so far to associate the Witch Hunts of the 14th to 17th Century with Burnings (which are easily survivable by any half competent witch or wizard). However, most witches/wizards in England, Wales and North America were *not* burnt. They were hanged - and since it is very definite canon (QTA) that witches/wizards cannot fly unaided we are probably going to find that hanging is just as fatal to them as to a Muggle. I suspect that we are going to find that the contempt, hatred and in some cases murderous rejection of Muggledom is based on the past experience that when Muggles find out what wizards/witches really are, they kill them. The WW could be considered as an oppressed minority which has reacted by completely rejecting their oppressors; refusing to accept that Muggles could have anything good to offer. Liking Muggles is against 'proper wizarding pride' because it sides with the 'enemy'. One of the things I find interesting about Tom Riddle is his refusal to acknowledge anything good about Muggles *despite* the fact that it is Muggles who have fed and clothed the baby Tom until his admission into Hogwarts. In fact, they are still doing so while he's at Hogwarts - the WW doesn't seem to care enough about half-muggle Tom to try and find him a foster family to stay with over the summer. Pip (who admits to Cindy that it probably is difficult to distinguish between Pippin and Pip, and who is quite happy to use Pip!squeak from now on) From alexpie at aol.com Fri Jun 7 20:14:09 2002 From: alexpie at aol.com (alexpie at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 16:14:09 EDT Subject: Lupin's Mysterious Background Message-ID: <10c.13021c16.2a326e11@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39571 In chapter 5of PoA, we are told that: "The name Professor R.J. Lupin was stamped across one corner (of his case) in peeling letters." In chapter 18, Lupin says (of Dumbledore): "[H]e gave me a job, when I have been shunned all my adult life, unable to find paid work because of what I am." The question is, why, then were the letters peeling? Was Lupin perhaps teaching abroad, and wanted to keep it quiet? Or working as an unpaid professor? Or is this merely Flint-y? Ba, of Ravenclaw From Edblanning at aol.com Fri Jun 7 21:12:59 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 17:12:59 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] TBAY: Minerva McGonagall Is Ever So Evil!/Stoned!Harry Message-ID: <137.f41993a.2a327bdb@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39572 /// /// /// /// /// /// <'<<<< <'<<<< <'<<<< <'<<<< <'<<<< <'<< << " \\\" " \\\" " \\\" " \\\" " \\\" " \\\" Eloise returns to Diana's castle, somewhat elated after the England Quidditch team's historic defeat of Argentina and makes her way into the drawing room for a celebratory drink. What has happened? The packing cases are gone and through the clouds of incense wafting from silver thuribles (thuribles? She's sure she didn't help Diana to pack those) she can make our plumps sofas and lush hangings. Mmm.....Porphyria's been at work. She approaches the decanter. Yes, Porphyria's *definitely* been at work, she thinks, testily, as she pours the last remaining drop into a glass. Porphyria suddenly bursts in, evidently in a state of high excitement. 'You're back....About time' 'Well, it was the match.......Did you see......' 'Match? What match? Quidditch?......Nah....Look, this is far more important!' and she thrusts into Eloise's hands a whole sheaf of parchments, all of which contain further evidence of the Evilness of Minerva McGonagall, not to mention a sighting of the rare Ericius Cestriensis Volatilis. It's not the first time Eloise has encountered this beast. She does hail from Cheshire, after all, but a sighting round the Bay...... The evidence is certainly impressive and more members of the OFH are always welcome. Eloise notes that Elkins (just visible through the haze, playing croquet on the lawn outside) has actually asked for membership and makes a mental note to invite Wynnde and Errol to apply. Elkins asks a very pertinent question. Just *what* was McGonagall doing at Privet Drive that day? What indeed? She's not very keen on Harry being left with the Dursleys, is she? Why not? Does she want him brought back to Hogwarts so that *she* can keep an eye on him? And what about when Harry's name comes out of the Goblet of Fire? She's very keen that Harry isn't disqualified for cheating, isn't she? (And she sucks up to Dumbledore in the process.) But what's this? Cindy is in the garden, spin-bowling Dicentra's Sirius Black Is Ever So Evil hedgehog with remarkable aplomb for one unused to cricket. 'It's croquet, Cindy.' Cindy looks unabashed. One strange English game is much like another, after all. Eloise give Cindy yet another bar for her Special Services to the OFH medal (she's unsure whether Dicentra *really* wants a badge or not) and tries to wrest the flamingo from Elkins so that Cindy can join in the game. Unfortunately, since Eloise strangled the first pink flamingo to make FEATHERBOAs for herself and George (or was it Marina? Eloise sometimes has trouble distinguishing them), games of croquet have involved taking turns with the second. Eloise has misgivings about this situation. Croquet is a particularly vicious game. Perhaps it's just as well they don't have a flamingo each, or it might come to blows. Eloise makes a mental tally of the hedgehogs at present being cared for at the castle. There's Bagman, Fudge, Snape, Sirius, Lupin, McGonagall, Mrs Lestrange!Arabella, Fred Weasley, even a little immature hedgehog called Harry. New applications flood in on a nearly daily basis. Perhaps this is the time to ask for help. Perhaps Porphyria would share the burden of office duties now that she's finished with that interior design contract. But Porphyria is already busy, perusing plans for a gazebo with Diana (who, quite frankly, has *des idees au dessous de sa gare*, if you know what I mean). But another of the parchments she has left catches Eloise's eye. Arcum mentions the Christmas dinner in GoF. This reminds Eloise of all those conversations about Stoned!Harry. Trelawney makes a fuss about which of Harry and Ron leaves the table first. What is Dumbledore's response (remember that we have made much of decapitation imagery)? That it doesn't matter, unless she thinks there is a mad *axeman* in the entrance hall. A small thing, but one that Eloise has been waiting for a suitable opportunity to point out. Eloise (off to check that Abelard #,##,#"> hasn't been mistaken for a croquet ball) P.S. side note to Errol The normal British spelling of grey *is* grey! James seems to have used an Americanism. ;-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Fri Jun 7 21:20:57 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 21:20:57 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Death (TBAY) (WAS Dumbledore's dispensibility) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39573 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: Pipsqueak is wandering about feeling bored. Hedgehog volleyball is fine, but Elkins just seems to want to spike the hedgehogs at Cindy's head. Pippin, meanwhile, seems to have wandered off for a game of hedgehog croquet. Cindy has finished stealing Dicentra's hedgehog, and is now lecturing on Banginess: > Now, it seems that almost everyone rates a dramatic and violent > death in the wizarding world. Only poor Mrs. Crouch gets a death > from natural causes, and that is probably only because JKR couldn't > think of any other way to sell Mrs. Crouch's sacrifice to free her > son. Pipsqueak listens with interest. Has Cindy missed something here? Has Cindy failed to spot the hedgehog flying proudly through this innocent 'sacrifice'? Pipsqueak waves in Cindy's direction. "Uh, Cindy? Cindy? Have you realised yet that Mrs Crouch is Ever So Evil? Cindy strides firmly over to the Pipsqueak and grabs her gently by the throat. She shakes her thoughtfully, to add emphasis to her comments. "Now listen here, you. In the past few days we have flown enough hedgehogs to hold our very own Jubilee Flypast." "But, Cindy..." says Pipsqueak. Or at least she tries to. What actually comes out sounds more like "Blurgshlleee". Cindy looks down on the Pipsqueak, and, probably alerted by the blueness of her face, relaxes her grip slightly. After Pipsqueak has stopped coughing, she continues: "We know that Barty Jr is a Death Eater. Who recruited him?" "Avery, for all I know!" says Cindy. "What do you mean, who recruited him?" "Ah yes, but what do we know about the other Junior Death Eaters? Draco, Crabbe and Goyle have fathers who are Death Eaters. Snape *arrives* at school knowing huge numbers of dark curses, implying he learnt them from a family member. Death Eating in at least some cases runs in families." Pipsqueak pauses, and starts to subtly ease her throat out from the grip of Cindy, who is getting an all too familiar gleam in her eye. She continues, "Who does Barty Jr. call for in the trial scene? Who rescues him from Azkaban to do his Master's bidding? Who's memory does Possibly Evil!Winky use when she wants to get Barty out of the house? Mummy, that's who." Pipsqueak steps backward suddenly, managing to just stay out of the reach of Cindy's clutching fingers. "How DARE you say that!" spits Cindy. "How DARE you! Don't you know that Mother Love is sacred? Don't you see poor Mrs Crouch sobbing her heart out in the trial scene? She let Barty out of Azkaban because her poor heart couldn't bear the thought of his rotting away there!" Pipsqueak looks slightly dubiously at Cindy, and begins to wonder if it's Cindy at all. This doesn't sound very FEATHERBOAish to her. Has somebody been accidentally sipping Polyjuice in mistake for Kool Aid? But she ploughs on. "I'm sure even Death Eaters love their kids. Mrs Malfoy doesn't seem keen on sending Draco abroad, for a start. And Draco seems to hero-worship his Death Eater father. So even Death- Eater!Mom Crouch might shed genuine tears at the thought of darling Barty going to Azkaban. But look how much this explains!" She takes a deep breath. "It explains Barty's early conversion to the Death-Eater cause. It explains Winky's dubious loyalties - with two members of the family she serves Death Eaters, she really would have problems deciding who to be loyal to. It explains Crouch Sr.'s use of the Unforgivables..." "Stop right there!" says Cindy. "WHY would a Voldemort supporter want Crouch to use the Unforgiveables on her own side? What good would that do them? Pipsqueak looks even more dubiously at what she is beginning to believe is definitely Polyjuiced!Cindy. At least, only a Polyjuiced! Cindy could be that - well - naive. "If you want your side to fight to the death," she says gently "then encouraging the other side to kill/torture upon capture is a *really* good plan. And who would be better placed to persuade Mr Crouch to use the Unforgivables than Mrs Crouch? 'They are ever-so-evil, aren't they dear?' 'Aren't you being a little soft on them, dear?' 'It is a war, dear. You can't really apply peacetime principles in a war.'" She looks thoughtfully at Cindy. Is that a hedgehog? Or is it a transformed hip flask that Cindy's holding? Just then a small spiky shape whizzes past. The Death-EaterMom! hedgehog is in flight. It heads off to the McGonagall!hedgehog and the Lupin!hedgehog. The three fall into a v-formation and level off at cruising height over the Big Bang. Yup! These hedgehogs can fly! Pipsqueak From nithya_rachel at hotmail.com Fri Jun 7 21:20:09 2002 From: nithya_rachel at hotmail.com (errolowl) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 21:20:09 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall Is Ever So Evil! (was TBAY) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39574 Oh! but these hedgehog games are addictive! There are several points that caught my attention: 1. Elkins while talking about Minerva as the first magical character ever introduced: >Well, okay. How about we look at her appearance in the very first >chapter of the very first book then? Uhuh! And what was she doing? "It was on the corner of the street that he noticed the first sign of something peculiar ? a cat reading a map. For a second, Mr. Dursley didn't realize what he had seen ? then he jerked his head around to look again. There was a tabby cat standing on the corner of Privet Drive, but there wasn't a map in sight." (SS 1) Something peculiar indeed! Now, we've debated if animagi get to keep their wizarding powers when they transform. Padfoot perhaps reads the papers he picks up at Hogsmeade. But to conjure up a map and make it vanish again? That would require a wand. And where does a cat keep her wand anyway? An animagi that can keep wizarding powers as a cat would be exceptionally powerful indeed. If this isn't a flint, then it's an early hint at Minerva's powerfulness. (Sure, she *has* to be powerful to eventually be deputy head at Hogwarts) 2. Elkins also made the point about the *all day long* thing: >> First off, McGonagall's very appearance on Privet Drive that morning is *highly* suspicious. Just what precisely is she doing there, anyway? She implies that she has been waiting there for Dumbledore --and yet she keeps herself hidden from him, only revealing herself once he makes it clear that he knows perfectly well that she is there.<< Cat McGonagall spent the *whole* day at Privet Drive the exact same day that Dumbledore used to invoke all the protection for that place. With her powers, could she have been able to observe and figure out most it? Ahhh! *that* was why she was there so early! I'd further speculate that she now has the ability to penetrate the area without warning bells going off and alerting the guardians. After all, there must be some allowance for residents of that area to enter & leave with impunity, right? Assuming the spell went `anyone other than those rightfully present at this time shall be subject to scrutiny'. Does her presence there that day get her counted as a `safe' resident/ pet? One of the regulars who used the street before there was ever a need for screening? 3. The initial Privet Drive scene. Elkins: >> I don't believe that she came to Privet Drive because Hagrid told her that she could find Albus Dumbledore there. In fact, I don't believe that she came to Privet Drive to speak with Dumbledore at all. >>Although it is perfectly obvious that McGonagall's interest in this conversation lies in her burning desire to know whether or not Voldemort has truly been defeated -- and if so, if it was truly Harry Potter who was responsible -- the narrative voice chooses to make this fact *explicit* -- just in case the reader somehow missed it: "Professor McGonagall shot a sharp look at Dumbledore and said, 'The owls are nothing to the *rumours* that are flying around. You know what everyone's saying? About why he's disappeared? About what finally stopped him?' It seemed that Professor McGonagall had reached the point she was most anxious to discuss, the real reason she had been waiting on a cold hard wall all day, for neither as a cat nor as a woman had she fixed Dumbledore with such a piercing stare as she did now." Boy. Jo sure didn't want us to miss that, huh? It's *important* to the author that the reader understand how very anxious McGonagall is to learn the truth of this matter, as well as to note that she goes about trying to get this information out of Dumbledore in an oddly indirect fashion. It is absolutely essential that the reader understand this.<< <> Elkins put it very well indeed! Minerva was there to get information from Dumbledore and she was fairly overflowing with anger and irritability. Here she is, finally in a position at Hogwarts where she has Dumbledore's trust, things are going swimmingly with the infiltration plan ? and now the whole thing appears to be off! No wonder she's upset! Elkins mentioned the anger - Consider: "The cat's tail twitched and its eyes narrowed" "She looked distinctly ruffled" "Professor McGonagall sniffed angrily" " "Oh yes, everyone's celebrating, all right", she said impatiently." " "I know that," said Professor McGonagall irritably" " " No thank you," said Professor McGonagall coldly" " "I know you haven't," said Professor McGonagall, sounding half exasperated, half admiring" "Shhh! Hissed Professor McGonagall" "She blinked her eyes furiously" That's nine references in four pages!! Besides, if she's a softy at heart, why didn't she get more emotional with baby Harry? (She `cries' in the we're-going-to-visit- petrified-Hermione scene for goodness sake!) It's Hagrid that kisses Harry goodbye. She's there pretending to cry ? blinking her eyes *furiously* and blowing her nose, but she didn't even *hold* Harry! What ever happened to the feminine instinct where babies are concerned? 4. Harry's first thought on seeing McGonagall "was that this was not someone to cross". And she takes sternness to great heights. These are new first year students ? does she welcome them nicely? No! She's abrupt and sharp voiced with them ummm, no wonder I don't like Minerva that much! Besides, she smiles so rarely! (None of this necessarily makes her a bad person or bad teacher, but it is unsettling). And Harry is never quite as confident as he ought to be with McGonagall is he? He feels safe only with Dumbledore around. Even for the Quidditch match where Snape is referee ? you'd think she could handle Snape wouldn't you, if not Voldmort? 5. And she is *so* angry when they knockout the troll ? "Professor McGonagall was looking at Ron and Harry. Harry had never seen her look so angry. Her lips were white." (SS 10) She over reacts there, but remembers to calm down and uses Hermione's excuse to back off. Note - She also manages to keep on Hermione's good side ? Hermione's not going to suspect McGonagall like she did Lupin. 6. She is also present at the first Quidditch match overseeing the commentary when Quirrell is jinxing Harry's broom. So why is Snape the only one doing anything about it? Couldn't ever-so- powerful Minerva do something, even if she didn't know about Quirrell precisely? Errol, who's having a lot of fun, but will have to stop now to catch up with all that backlogged work. (eyes Porphyria's squashy purple chair and that tumbler of scotch with great interest) _____________________________________________________________________ "Honestly, Hermione, you think all teachers are saints or something," snapped Ron. (SS 11) From nithya_rachel at hotmail.com Fri Jun 7 22:03:27 2002 From: nithya_rachel at hotmail.com (errolowl) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 22:03:27 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Minerva McGonagall Is Ever So Evil!/ 13 at dinner In-Reply-To: <137.f41993a.2a327bdb@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39575 But another of the parchments Porphyria has left catches Eloise's eye: > Arcum mentions the Christmas dinner in GoF. This reminds Eloise of all those > conversations about Stoned!Harry. > Trelawney makes a fuss about which of Harry and Ron leaves the table first. > What is Dumbledore's response (remember that we have made much of > decapitation imagery)? That it doesn't matter, unless she thinks there is a > mad *axeman* in the entrance hall. > A small thing, but one that Eloise has been waiting for a suitable > opportunity to point out. Eloise, Eloise! Dumbledore doesn't say a word there! It's *McGonagall* who does all the talking on the subject - Evil! McGonagall who would be delighted if McNair did his bit on Harry....McGonagall, McNair...umm, from the same community? (its a Stretch of course! ;-) (POA 11): >> [Trelawney] suddenly uttered a kind of soft scream." I dare not, Headmaster! If I join the table, we shall be thirteen! Nothing could be more unlucky! Never forget that when thirteen dine together, the first to rise will die!" "we'll risk it, Sibyll," said Professor McGonagall impatiently "do sit down, the turkey's getting stone cold" Professor Trelawney hesitated, then lowered herself into the empty chair...Professor McGonagall poked a large spoon into the nearest tureen. " Tripe, Sibyll?" and later: "I doubt it will make much difference" said Professor McGonagall coldly, "unless a mad axe-man is waiting outside the doors to slaughter the first into the entrance hall"<< Dumbledore does *nothing* to set the minds of the students at ease - something he ought to do if he knew that there was no basis for the 13 at dinner fiasco. This IMO constitutes a foreshadowing. Errol, who *really* should get to work. _________________________________________________________________ Eloise: > P.S. side note to Errol > The normal British spelling of grey *is* grey! James seems to have used an Americanism. ;-) OOps!! sorry! That with a British educational system and American television, I'm afraid I've got my languages confused!! Of course, never having been to either America or England doesn't help very much ;-) From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Fri Jun 7 23:58:03 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 23:58:03 -0000 Subject: Lupin's Mysterious Background In-Reply-To: <10c.13021c16.2a326e11@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39576 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., alexpie at a... wrote: > In chapter 5of PoA, we are told that: "The name Professor R.J. Lupin was > stamped across one corner (of his case) in peeling letters." In chapter 18, > Lupin says (of Dumbledore): "[H]e gave me a job, when I have been shunned all > my adult life, unable to find paid work because of what I am." > The question is, why, then were the letters peeling? Was Lupin perhaps > teaching abroad, and wanted to keep it quiet? Or working as an unpaid > professor? Or is this merely Flint-y? > Ba, of Ravenclaw There are several plausible reasons. He could have been hired as a teacher (he does seem to have a knack for it) once but was let go when his condition became known. The poor man does seem to have difficulty holding down a job. Also peeling letters can be a sign of poor and/or hasty workmanship as well as poor quality of materials. Marcus From katgirl at lava.net Fri Jun 7 23:58:26 2002 From: katgirl at lava.net (booklovinggirl) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 23:58:26 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Dumbledore's death/Table of 13 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39577 Cindy: > Now, it seems that almost everyone rates a dramatic and violent > death in the wizarding world. Only poor Mrs. Crouch gets a death > from natural causes, and that is probably only because JKR couldn't > think of any other way to sell Mrs. Crouch's sacrifice to free her > son. Even Voldemort's mother probably left this world screaming in > intense pain. When people die in the wizarding world, things > explode, buildings collapse, their souls are ripped from their > bodies, they encounter an enormous serpent at the wrong time, there > are lights flashing and swishing sounds. Wizarding death is almost > always *extremely* Bangy. > In the face of all of that, JKR is planning a death for Dumbledore > from natural causes? He's going to slowly deteriorate, scribbling > out his will whereby he carefully decides who should get his > Pensieve? I can't get that scene to Bang. Not even a little bit. I can. WARNING: Can(n)on-less theory ahead. "I leave my Pensieve to Thomas Marvolo Riddle." An even more shocking idea: Harry glimpses Remus with the DE's. And in Dumbledore's will, it says: "I leave my Pensieve to Thomas Marvolo Riddle and ask my trusted spies, Severus Snape and Remus Lupin to deliver it to him." Not that this would ever happen. Dumbledore, after all, doesn't trust Voldemort. One could argue that giving his Pensieve to Voldemort would be an attempt at trying to help Voldemort and bring him over to good, since Voldemort would see some of Dumbledore's wisdom through the Pensieve. But Voldemort is so corrupted that I have a hard time seeing even that. So this theory doesn't have any real canon behind it. But I rest my case. Dumbledore dying of natural causes *can* be Bangy. If JKR does it well, it even be more Bangy than anything involving lava and a catwalk. It just happens that lava and a catwalk happen to be easier to make Bangy than natural causes. Arcum: > Incidentally, (and off the topic of Sirus), one scene in PoA that > has been bothering me is on Christmas day, when they sit at the > common table for dinner. Trelawney makes a big deal about how > unlucky it is for 13 people to dine together. Traditionally, the > number 13 being unlucky dates to the last supper, and when we are > dealing with a scene on Christmas day, I have to wonder if a betrayal > coming from one of the people at the table is being foreshadowed > here. > > OTOH, it just occurred to me that Hermione betrays Harry about the > Firebolt on the next page, so it may not be that major. Still, that > seems minor for an analogy to Judas, so for reference, the people > at the table were: Dumbledore, McGonagall, Snape, Sprout, Flitwick, > Filch, Trelawney, Harry, Ron, Hermione, 2 extremely nervous first > year students(one of whom is named Derek), and a sullen-faced > Slytherin fifth year student. PoA's Christmas dinner has been on my mind recently-what did the Christmas feast mean? Ron would unknowingly save Harry's life and vice-versa? (Getting up at the same time.) Trelawney would predict trouble? (She was unwilling to sit.) Cause trouble? (If she had left it would have remained 12.) Dumbledore would accidently nudge her into it? (Inviting her to sit down.) I didn't however, link it to the Last Supper, and thank Arcum for seeing it. I reread the scene in PoA, looking for any incident of spilling something. (The first thing I thought of with Judas was spilling salt.) Nobody actually spilled, or it wasn't noted, anyway, but a few people were associated with food: 1. Dumbledore. "Derek, have you had any of these chipolatas? They're excellent." (PoA, American hardcover, page 230.) Personally, I think this mention is innocent-this is not a very suspicious mention of food, and it's Dumbledore's only menton of it as well. 2. Derek. "The first year boy went furiously red on being addressed directly by Dumbledore and took the platter of sausages with trembling hands." (PoA, American hardcover, page 230.) Trembling hands. Uh-oh. The only thing I can think of that may help Derek out of being the betrayer is that all we know of him, besides his name, is that he was a nervous first year at the PoA Christmas celebration. We don't even know his house. But if JKR decides she'll develope him a little more, I'll be very, very worried. 3. McGonagall. "We'll risk it, Sibyll." said Professor McGongall impatiently. "Do sit down, the turkey's getting cold." (PoA, American hardcover, page 228.) and "Tripe, Sibyll?" (PoA, American hardcover, page 229.) Hmm. Two references here. And both of them are pretty antagonistic to Trelawney. Perhaps she's trying to keep Trelawney from predicting the trouble ahead? I don't go chasing after Flying Hedgehogs, and I usually don't say McGonagall is evil, but I do think this looks a little suspicious. -Katherine Information about Bangy-ness and Flying Hedgehogs can be found at Hypothetic Alley, located at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin20Files/hypothe ticalley.htm From meboriqua at aol.com Sat Jun 8 00:59:01 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 00:59:01 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39578 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > In the face of all of that, JKR is planning a death for Dumbledore > from natural causes? He's going to slowly deteriorate, scribbling > out his will whereby he carefully decides who should get his > Pensieve? I can't get that scene to Bang. Not even a little bit.> Then why all the references to his age in GoF? > > I can't see death by natural causes. I just can't. No, even the AK > curse isn't good enough for Albus. Albus is going to have to > *suffer* a very inventive death right there where the Bangers can > see it and enjoy it. > > When Dumbledore goes out, he has to go down *swinging* and everyone > has to be right there watching but unable to help. Ideally, he'll > save a few people on his way out, preferably Harry. Any cliche at > all for Dumbledore's death is fine by me. He can be diffusing a > bomb and can accidently cut the *red* wire, if you like. Just so > long as Dumbledore makes an enormous *Bang* when he dies, I'll be > satisfied. > > Cindy (who might be willing to compromise by allowing Dumbledore to > be sentenced to Azkaban and have his soul sucked out, so long as > Harry is right there watching the whole thing)> Hmmm - this is something I've also been thinking. I have a bad feeling that Harry will be there when not one, but several of the people he cares about die. However, I am not sure why that is. Do we feel that Harry needs to witness these deaths because they will help make him more of a man? Or do we think JKR is just going for the heartstring pulling? *Or* is Harry actually witnessing these deaths the only way for us to believe them? If I read in OoP that Harry simply found out that Dumbledore/Hagrid/Lupin/Dobby has died, I'll be suspicious because Harry didn't see it happen. So why does Cindy also feel that Harry somehow must witness these sick and twisted events? Or is Cindy also sick and twisted - like I am? --jenny from ravenclaw, not above admitting that she sometimes is sick and twisted ********************************************* From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com Sat Jun 8 01:06:02 2002 From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 18:06:02 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: 1980 being Harry Potter's Birthyear (short) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39579 >~User "Harry Potter and the Ocarina of Time" Googol~ wrote: >> In the begining of GoF, (supposedly in 1994) Dudley's Playstation >> is thrown out the window. However, the Sony Playstation was first >> released in 1995. (And England tends to get video games later than >> the rest of the world, not earlier.) Trust me on this, by the way, >> I know my video games. >> >> I don't, however, think that the 1980 chronology is completely >> wrong. After all, 1994 and 1995 are pretty close. I think that the >> whole matter is very delicate though, and that there is no purely >> failsafe timeline theory. (This one is ideal for the time being >> though.) >> >> ~User "Harry Potter and the Ocarina of Time" Googol~ > Maybe it's just me, but my first instinct is that JKR simply forgot what year Playstation came out. I know that ~I~ personally wouldn't have been able to tell the date for certain other than mid 90s. It's possible that she just estimated when the system came out because, remember, the original audience for this series was children who likely wouldn't have noticed or cared what year it came out (since most of them were toddlers or babies at the time) or if things like dates, moon cycles etc actually added up to the correct years. The only reason any of this is an issue at all is that it has become popular with older and more critical audiences who ~do~ care. Somehow I don't think JKR expected anything even close to what has happened, especially mailing lists like this one with well over 4000 members that go over her story with a fine toothed comb. In the end, I don't think it really matters if the years are exact as long as the events and general spacing is right. I don't think it matters if Harry is in school the 90s, or 2002 -- it's pretty universal overall, and unless JKR starts putting in more specific references to link it to time the series will continue to be only vaguely connected to actual calendar events. --- --Hana _______________________________________________________ WIN a first class trip to Hawaii. Live like the King of Rock and Roll on the big Island. Enter Now! http://r.lycos.com/r/sagel_mail/http://www.elvis.lycos.com/sweepstakes From aiz24 at hotmail.com Sat Jun 8 01:16:00 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 21:16:00 -0400 Subject: Equal (?) best friends redux (was Comforting!Ron, Lying!Harry) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39580 Oh dear. I really did hope we could leave this sordid little incident behind us . But I feel compelled to speak. Penny wrote: >Amy Z goes on to bolster my continuing efforts to convince the HP >World >that Ron and Hermione are equal best friends in Harry's eyes -- >I mean to say: if the only evidence that he cares for Ron more is the > >off-hand remark about spending more time in the library when Hermione > >was your best friend ... well. Harumph. Sorry, but that just >doesn't >cut it with me. Well, that isn't the *only* evidence. The evidence is thin, and there is much counterevidence, but there is more to it than this. I detailed some in message 38747 and I and others did elsewhere in that thread. >So far, all I know is that Amy Z and I are both members of the "Ron >and >Hermione are Equal Best Friends to Harry" club. Penny, I really want to be in a club with you, and keep on clinking our butterbeers and all. Our uniforms are so nifty! Our secret handshake is so secret! How could I jeopardize my membership in this wonderful club? But honesty requires that I clarify my position: (1) I really really want Ron and Hermione to be equal best friends to Harry; (2) I think the *preponderance* of evidence is that this is the case; but (3) there are mentions, here and there, in the books and interviews, that lead one to believe that it is not the case. See, phrases like "one of his best friends" don't help us. That phrase is used of both Ron and Hermione, repeatedly. So far so good. The trouble comes in when one looks for the phrase "best friend," singular, and finds it in those pesky interviews, where JKR says in a few different ways and apparently without a blink that children are concerned about Ron because *he's the hero's best friend.* In contrast, the only time *Hermione* is referred to as *the* best friend is when there is no one else--when the specific issue is that Ron and Harry are not being friends at all. I searched the Goat Pen (let's say the Goat Pasture, shall we? Goats need room to run and kick up their heels) and "best friend" (again, as opposed to something like "one of his best friends" or "his two best friends") turns up no mention of Hermione. So the score stands at: Both mentioned as equal best friends: many times Ron mentioned as "the" or "his" best frienD: a few times Hermione mentioned as "the" or "his" best frienD: never, except in the negative example of GF 20. Thus, living in an agony of uncertainty until 2012 or whenever book 7 comes out, Amy Z _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From aiz24 at hotmail.com Sat Jun 8 02:38:30 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (lupinesque) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 02:38:30 -0000 Subject: 1980 being Harry Potter's Birthyear (short) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39581 Hana wrote: > Maybe it's just me, but my first instinct is that JKR simply >forgot what year Playstation came out. I know that ~I~ personally >wouldn't have been able to tell the date for certain other than mid >90s. It's not just you. JKR didn't have a child old enough to play with a Playstation, and judging from the MegaMutilation III comment, she doesn't think much of them (though maybe that's just Harry's opinion, or his sour grapes for that matter). I think it's very likely that she just didn't know what year they came out--though I love the research that shows that a kid who demanded the very newest in entertainment, e.g. Dudley, might have had one in time for her to be accurate. Amy Z ---------------------------------------------------- "Even underage wizards are allowed to use magic if it's a real emergency, section nineteen or something of the Restriction of Thingy..." -HP and the Chamber of Secrets ---------------------------------------------------- From faechick at bellsouth.net Sat Jun 8 00:39:42 2002 From: faechick at bellsouth.net (Katie Saracen) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 20:39:42 -0400 Subject: Muggles and International Wizarding Relations References: <1023465382.2937.86567.m2@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000701c20e84$fdc34520$0300a8c0@bellsouth.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39582 Hello everyone, I'm new. Figured I'd jump right in! >>> Origional Message: >>> Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 00:49:52 -0400 (EDT) >>> From: >>> Subject: Muggles and International Wizarding Relations >> "As we know, however, the 'real world' exists alongside this magical one. But what of those societies that accept the magical and supernatural? Consider the amount of societies who believe in supernatural beings or powers; and in shamans . . . sorcerers . . . and witches . . . What about Wiccans . . . Would HP-style witches consider this type of magic to be trickery or to have a rational anthropological-type explanation? Or would this be considered an equally valid form of magic? . . . " << I'd imagine they'd be considered valid, if not as easy, practical or modern as the magic taught at Hogwarts. A lot like the real world, really. There are usually at least two ways to do things, each (or all) of which are valid and will work, but one of which is faster, easier and/or more efficient than the others. If there were courses on such types of magic, I'd say they'd focus more on historical impacts and sociological influences than the actual casting processes. >> "How, exactly, do HP magicals manage to remain so completely incompetent in the Muggle world? . . . " << If you've read "Quidditch Through the Ages" and "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" you might have noticed the references towards the anti-wizarding sentiments of the early sevententh-century (Quidditch Through the Ages, p42) (which I assume is when the mentioned "International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy" came about [Quidditch Through the Ages, p2]). It was alluded that the Wizarding community as a whole was very close to completely cutting ties with the Muggle world for fear of persecution. I'd imagine that whatever could cause such a drastic step would still be in effect this day. Fear of persecution is a hard thing to shake; just as hard, in fact, as fear of death. Voldemort and the Death Eaters are obviously not the nicest of people, nor are they open Muggle lovers. If I were a Wizard during Voldemort's reign of terror, I'd sever as many ties with the Muggle world as possible in order to stay out of his line of sight. If either reason holds validity in the cannon, the "youth of today" would be excellent choices for helping the two worlds mesh again. Those raised in the Muggle world would have seen all sorts of things involving racial, sexual-orientation, and gender persecution. Also, the world has entered an "information age" with the internet and all. Newly sorted Wizards and Witches would have a lot more knowledge under their belt than they would have had before. Overall, I think it would make for a much more open-minded generation filing out into the Wizarding world. >> ". . . How large is the wizarding world as a whole? . . ." << Again, if you've read "Quidditch Through the Ages" and "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" you'll get teasers on the rest of the world. "Quidditch Through the Ages" has a chapter called "The Spread of Quidditch Worldwide" which focuses on the world's view of Quidditch (which, interestingly enough, reminds me a lot of soccor [football]). In "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" monsters from all over the world are detailed. This leads me to believe the Wizarding world is as large as are own, if not as densely populated. There is a section of chapter eight in QTtA ("The Spread of Quidditch Worldwide") that focuses on Asia, where India, Pakistan, Bangeladesh and Iran are all mentioned as having seperate Ministries of Magic (QTtA, p46). This leads me to believe that while there is one name for the organization, each country has and runs its own branch as a government, with the same laws and restrictions as found in the rest of the world (and possibly with their own amendments based on geography and society). >> " . . . We saw that wizards can be patriotic/nationalistic during the World Cup Quidditch match. Does Muggle politics spill into the international wizarding world? Would real world language tensions in Canada, for example, spill into the magical world? Does racism exist there? Would any magical institution protest that there were too many magical immigrants around? Or is prejudice primarily based on purity of blood? Are Magicals involved in Great World Events? Did they participate in any of the World Wars? Watch the moon landing? Fear nuclear war?" << Well, they're still human so most of those would apply, I'm sure. Some things might not. Politics, for example. I think the Ministries fo Magic pretty much make up the only governments Wizards and Witches pay much attention to. >> "Is the wizarding world more united than the Muggle world? . . . " << No. I say this based solely on "Quidditch Through the Ages." The Americas are hinted as being just as different in Wizarding terms with the UK as they are in Muggle terms. They even have a different broom game that's popular ("Quodpot"). (This idea makes me feel that Voldemort didn't have much worldwide influence before his spell backfired on him, although he could have gotten it had he not been frizzled.) Even with Wizarding modes of travel there's still a huge distance between continents and peoples. Most significantly, the distances would have been even larger in the beginning due to the low quality of brooms (see QTtA again). It was mentioned in QTtA that the first Quidditch World Cup only had European countries compeating because some countries that were farther away didn't want to make long journeys (due to the fact that Apparation becomes inaccurate and unstable over long distances) (QTtA, p39). These distances would undoubtably effect variances in the way Wizards do things the same way they've effected the way Muggles do things in real life. -Faechick From suzchiles at pobox.com Sat Jun 8 03:03:49 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 20:03:49 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: 1980 being Harry Potter's Birthyear (short) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39583 > -----Original Message----- > From: Hana [mailto:gohana_chan02 at lycos.com] > In the end, I don't think it really matters if the years are > exact as long as the events and general spacing is right. I > don't think it matters if Harry is in school the 90s, or 2002 -- > it's pretty universal overall, and unless JKR starts putting in > more specific references to link it to time the series will > continue to be only vaguely connected to actual calendar events. Amen, Sister! thanks, Zoe From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Sat Jun 8 03:28:56 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 03:28:56 -0000 Subject: Why must they be equal? (Was:Re: Equal (?) best friends redux ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39584 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > Oh dear. I really did hope we could leave this sordid little incident > behind us . But I feel compelled to speak. > Amy Z Why is it important to establish which is the best friend or if they are equal? (This question is asked to all, not just Amy.) I would say that Ron is closer to Harry than Hermione is. What else would be expected? They are just starting to hit the hormones. Before that happens, guys tend to hang out with guys and gals tend to hang out with gals. It's a fact of life. Hermione, no matter how close she is to Harry and Ron, is still a girl. It is to be expected that Harry will hang out more with Ron than Hermione for a few years. There is also the matter of Harry sharing a room with Ron. There are just some conversations that are reserved for the bedroom where you let you hair completely down; and like it or not, they can't be done yet between Hermione and the boys. Not unless JKR lets the series get a whole lot racier, that is. It is interesting that Hermione invades the boys' dorm in CoS and PoA over Christmas but Ron or Harry have never seen her dorm. Now if you are feeling sorry for Hermione, don't be. She is getting her share of private girl chat. Ginny knew all about Krum, but Harry and Ron -- her two "best" friends -- didn't. This is to be expected. People generally confide about the opposite sex with members of their own gender, especially in the teenage years when they are trying to figure out the rules. So Hermione has two best friends she hangs out with and at least one female friend she confides with about girl things. Harry and Ron both have two best friends they hang out with, one of which is a male friend to confide with about boy things. Marcus From elfundeb at aol.com Sat Jun 8 03:47:12 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 23:47:12 EDT Subject: TBAY: Minerva McGonagall and Sybil Trelawney are Ever So Evil! Message-ID: <190.7fe6a12.2a32d840@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39585 It is nighttime on Theory Bay, and Debbie is lounging in the Memory Charm paddleboat, her head sinking down on a pillow of canary feathers that Charis Julia left. All week she has been relaxing among the feathers, watching the nightly spectacle unfold. For night after night, Debbie has seen a fireworks display on the Bay like she has never seen before. First, the incantation, "[somebody] is Ever So Evil!" followed each time by a green flash and the appearance of a vast glittering hedgehog in the sky. Debbie has company tonight, as Dogberry has come to join her on the Memory Charm paddleboat (at least until WINCHed away), and is sitting on the bow of the boat contemplating Evil! Gran and Evil! Uncle Algie dolls while awaiting tonight's spectacle. But all is quiet on the Bay. Does that mean every suspect has been outed? Debbie consults Cindy's handy list. No, they have missed one! Katherine tried hard, but couldn't get there: I'm not sure you can call Trelawney a minor teacher. And you can imagine Evil!Trelawney, if you try hard enough. But unless she's unbelievably twisted, (Hmm...I just got a picture of Trelawney as Mrs. Lestrange. ::shudder:: That's taking it a little far.) she won't betray Dumbledore. Au contraire! Debbie thinks this one is the most obvious of them all, so obvious that she wonders if it would even rate a hedgehog. Surely someone has outed her before? Clearly there's more to Trelawney than the traveling carnival charlatan that she appears to be. But, looking through her Omnioculars, Debbie notices that everyone else seems to be picnicking and playing lawn games over at Diana's castle. Well, then, it's up to her to provide today's fireworks. She plunges deep into the pile of feathers, and finally uncovers her wand at the bottom of the paddleboat. Lifting it into the air, she shouts, "Sybil Trelawney is Ever So Evil!" #,##,#"> Yes, the hedgehog sparkles quite nicely in the dark sky, and immediately thereafter, a soft little hedgehog plops down onto the feathers, bearing a parchment in its mouth. It appears to be an application for the Order of the Flying Hedgehog, with instructions to return to Eloise, c/o Diana's castle. (Debbie reminds herself that she never filled out a proper application for Fred Weasley; one more thing for the to-do list.) Debbie gets out her quill, and begins to fill it out. After answering the usual questions about one's name, place of residence in Theory Bay, and name of Hedgehog candidate on the front of the application, she turns it over and reads: "Explain your reasons for proposing the candidate. Be specific. You must include at least one can(n)on to support your theory." Debbie sharpens her quill again, and begins to write: You see, Trelawney is a charlatan, but not the kind everyone thinks. In fact, she's quite skilled at divination, and has one particular talent in an advanced area, far beyond the "basic methods of Divination" that she covers with the third years (PoA ch. 6): She is a medium who not only can, but frequently does contact the dead. In fact, she's been in contact for quite some time with a particular dead person. Unfortunately for her, the spirit chose Harry's final exam to pay his friend Sybil a visit. You want can(n)on? Notice how when she makes her prediction (PoA ch. 16) she is "rigid in her armchair; her eyes were unfocused and her mouth sagging." She seems to be having a seizure, as if she's possessed by a spirit. Then she speaks in "a loud, harsh voice . . . quite unlike her own" -- the spirit's voice, of course. Who is it? Why, it has to be the spirit of a dead DE. Who else could it be, given the kind of language that the spirit uses? "The Dark Lord lies alone and friendless . . .his servant has been chained these twelve years . . . The servant will break free and rejoin his master . . . the Dark Lord will rise again . . ." This is vintage Barty Jr. talk. It can only be a DE speaking through her. And then, afterwards, she tries to cover up, telling Harry it was so hot she drifted off. Right. She just wanted to cover up who she's been talking to. In fact, she keeps it that hot on purpose, so she can make excuses. And then she tries to cover herself by pretending righteous indignation at the very idea that she would have spoken of the Dark Lord: "The Dark Lord?" and she then corrects herself quickly - "He -Who-Must-Not-Be-Named? My dear boy, that's hardly something to joke about. I would certainly not presume to predict anything as far-fetched as that!" Ha! Yes, that's right in character, as Trelawney-the-fraud would not do such a thing. But Trelawney-the-Medium? The fact is that she *is* a competent seer but is unwilling to admit it. It's because she doesn't want him to believe she knows what happened. She doesn't want him to know that she's in contact with a DE, because that would reveal that she's a DE herself, and that she keeps in touch with what's going on vis-?-vis Voldemort. And it works, of course, because by GoF, Harry "had long since come to the conclusion that her brand of fortunetelling was really no more than lucky guesswork and a spooky manner." Only briefly does he remember her prediction about Voldemort. (GoF, unlucky ch. 13) Who is this spirit Trelawney keeps in touch with? It has to be a loyal, dead DE. Well, how about Rosier? Rosier and Wilkes were "killed by Aurors the year before Voldemort fell," according to Sirius (GoF ch. 27). Crouch tells Karkaroff that Rosier preferred to fight than be captured quietly-- he sounds pretty loyal to me. And, assuming for this purpose that Trelawney's first accurate prediction (or at least the first accurate prediction anyone else heard) was that the last Potter would defeat the last remaining ancestor/descendant of Slytherin, then it all fits. Because Rosier could easily have died and had time to be summoned by Trelawney before that prediction was made. And this explains, too, why Trelawney seems to be such a fraud. She needs to hide that she knows anything about divination at all. And she plays her part to the hilt. It's all there - the costume, playing the odds, betting on the obvious winners, right in her first class (PoA, ch. 6). Who's most likely to break a teacup? Why, that would be Nervous Neville. Voldemort is after Harry? Well, then, his death is the odds-on favorite in the class. In fact, she might get the privilege of doing him in herself! No wonder she gives Harry and Ron top marks for their fake predictions and commended them for their "unflinching acceptance of the horrors." (GoF ch. 15) (Note that since Ron might have gotten up first at Christmas dinner, she may have to kill them both to fulfill the prophecy.) They're highly likely to come true! But not this month? Those are just details -- like Lavender's rabbit - that make her look like a fraud, which is good for her cover. That way she won't be believed in the event she slips up and speaks in front of someone. Harry claims to see a Hippogriff in the crystal ball? Well, Trelawney herself knows what's going to happen to him. She just saw her good friend Macnair arrive at Hogwarts with his trusty axe. And she goes it one better, with the ridiculous predictions that she controls herself. ["I have been crystal gazing . . . and to my astonishment I saw myself abandoning my solitary luncheon" (PoA ch. 11), or how about "the Fates have informed me that your examination in June will concern the Orb." You know, that whole traveling carnival routine is simply inspired. Yes, Trelawney's a mite bit dangerous to be keeping around Hogwarts. But Dumbledore thinks it's rather helpful to keep someone on hand who seems to be a medium for some dark wizard. That's why he hired her after she made the first prediction. It's a good thing, he thinks, to have that line of communication; in fact, it's just like having a little spy network. That's why he makes jokes about her little Pettigrew prediction. "I should offer her a pay raise."(PoA ch. 22) But he also keeps her locked in the North Tower on purpose, so nobody else can hear her predictions. She escaped that one Christmas; Dumbledore was so surprised he stood up when she entered, even though dinner had begun. (PoA ch. 11) That's why he's so calm when Harry tells him about her prediction. But once he's dead, and no one knows what she's about . . . well, Trelawney (with her companion Rosier/Wilkes) is just biding her time. She's right where she needs to be. As we know now, even Dumbledore can be fooled by an exceptionally clever Dark wizard. The devil, of course, is in the details. But the details are there. Trelawney wears a green, sequined dress to Christmas dinner in PoA, the only time we are told the color of her attire. And when Harry has the dream about Voldemort putting the Cruciatus Curse on Wormtail in her classroom, she knows exactly what happened and presses Harry for details of what he saw. She says, "You were rolling on the floor, clutching your scar! Come now, Potter, I have experience in these matters." She knows it had something to do with Voldemort, and she tries to keep him in the classroom. "If you leave now, you may lose the opportunity to see further than you ever . . . ." But Harry goes off to Dumbledore. And Evil! Sybil also explains Trelawney's little feud with McGonagall. Because, as Porphyria and Elkins make clear, McGonagall is also Ever So Evil. Both of them are Voldemort's loyal servants, and both want to deliver Harry to Voldemort when the time is right. But each of them wants Voldemort to reward *her* -- they don't want to share this. So Minerva puts down Sybil at every opportunity. ("Tripe, Sybil?") But at the same time she protects Trelawney's cover by dissing divination and telling Harry that Sybil predicts someone's death every year. (PoA ch. 6) She knows whose death is being predicted, even before Harry tells her. She's planning to bring it about herself. And that mad axe-man comment at the end of Christmas dinner? Well, McGonagall thinks that was a faux-pas by Trelawney, predicting Harry's death yet again, so she protects Trelawney yet again by distracting everyone from the obvious fact that Harry hasn't avoided his fate merely by not dying immediately. After all, both of them intend that Harry will be the first to die. McGonagall even encourages Trelawney to sit down at the table, so the number will be 13. As an afterthought, Debbie also notes the following additional evidence of Evil! Minerva: In CoS, she lets Harry and Ron go visit Hermione in the infirmary when everyone else is being personally escorted about because the Basilisk is on the loose. Another Oscar-caliber actress, she fakes the soft spot rather well. Nice try, Minerva, but the Basilisk just didn't happen to be in the Infirmary corridor at the time. The application complete, Debbie picks up the little brown hedgehog and puts the completed application back into his mouth. Then she transfigures her paddle into a catapult and heaves the hedgehog over to Diana's lawn. Transfiguring the catapult back into a paddle, Debbie once again reclines on her bed of canary feathers and watches the night sky, contemplating whether she should make some of the feathers into a new FEATHERBOA. **************************** Debbie, noting that a mad axe-man does appear later in PoA. It's Macnair, and he was quite mad when he saw Buckbeak was gone so it's a good thing Harry was out of sight. And, of course, Macnair is also a DE. For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin20Files/hypoth eticalley.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 katzefan at yahoo.com Sat Jun 8 03:48:26 2002 From: katzefan at yahoo.com (katzefan) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 03:48:26 -0000 Subject: Boggart powers (WAS: NixTheBewitchingHour, etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39586 From:? "ssk7882" <*fairly large snip*> >I don't really believe that the boggarts can simulate the abilities >or powers of the forms that they take. If such were the case, >then I find it *very* difficult to believe that anyone would >consider it appropriate to teach children how to banish them in >a classroom setting.... What if a basilisk had turned out >to be some kid's personal bogey? Not at all unlikely, only one >year after _CoS._ And that would have been good, wouldn't it? >Half of the class would have been *dead* before anyone could >manage to stammer out a "Riddikulus." <*small snip*> >.... I think that it's all >psychosomatic. If Harry hadn't already known from his >experience on the train what the dementors could do to him, >then the boggart wouldn't have had at all the same effect. I don't know if it's *all* psychosomatic, but I do think a lot of it is. Lupin, being older, would be less likely to react to the Boggart- moon, but Harry, who has only just encountered the Dementors and has had some pretty horrible reactions to their presence, might be more likely to have the same reactions in the vicinity of the Boggart-Dementor. It would be interesting to have a third incident involving someone else - how would (for example) a young werewolf react to the Boggart-moon; alternately, how will Harry react in 20 or 30 years to a Boggart-Dementor? Having said this, however, the point about the Basilisk is still a good one: if one student *had* called up a Boggart-Basilisk as his/her worst fear, it's quite likely that at least one kid *would* have been dead ... because that would be what that student expected to happen if the Basilisk glanced at him/her. I do like the 'witching hour' theory; it does explain to some extent why Lupin doesn't seem to react as soon as the moon rises, but considerably later instead - and even then, not until the moon peeks out from behind the clouds. Hmmm ... so if the night is completely overcast, would he still transform? From PoA canon, it sounds like it. It might be a slower transformation - or somewhat later - than if the moon is actually shining on him, but sooner or later the Witching Hour (and the moon) will catch up with him. From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Sat Jun 8 07:33:31 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Krista Berry) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 00:33:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore does not HAVE to die Message-ID: <20020608073331.15272.qmail@web21508.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39587 Christi wrote... <<>> I've had this feeling about Dumbledore as well, especially because of what I consider to be forshadowing to his death ("next big adventure",looking very old, etc.) but he would still- in spirit?- help guide Harry. OTOH, I've also thought this would be a bit too Obi Wan Konobi-ish for JKR. But, maybe it's a common hero-trainer-dies-to-make-way-for-hero theme, IMO. --Lilac (who only just recently got the "Magical Worlds of Harry Potter" and finally and read it, but can't find it right now to refer to this hero theme, nor can she remember that famous myth guy quoted in that book.....she needs to get more sleep ;) --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Sat Jun 8 08:11:54 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 04:11:54 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Minerva McGonagall Is Ever So Evil!/ 13 at dinner Message-ID: <14a.f047126.2a33164a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39588 Errol swoops in: > But another of the parchments Porphyria has left catches Eloise's > eye: > > > Arcum mentions the Christmas dinner in GoF. This reminds Eloise of > all those > > conversations about Stoned!Harry. > > Trelawney makes a fuss about which of Harry and Ron leaves the > table first. > > What is Dumbledore's response (remember that we have made much of > > decapitation imagery)? That it doesn't matter, unless she thinks > there is a > > mad *axeman* in the entrance hall. > > A small thing, but one that Eloise has been waiting for a suitable > > opportunity to point out. > > > Eloise, Eloise! Dumbledore doesn't say a word there! It's > *McGonagall* who does all the talking on the subject - Evil! > McGonagall who would be delighted if McNair did his bit on > Aargh.....you're right. Misremembered that one, all right. And I'm furious, because there I was, scraping the barrell for Evil!McGonagall canon and I had a nice one stashed away there already. Just goes to show her evil cunning, disguising it from me, that's what I say. Perhaps she knows we're on to her! >McGonagall, McNair...umm, from the same community? (its a >Stretch of course! ;-) Mmm. They're both presumably Scots, but I don't think I'd like to go any further than that, especially not given the slight national rivalries that tend to rear their ugly heads at times such as this. Eloise Confunded, as ever. (And still waving an England flag) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From slinkie at nids.se Sat Jun 8 11:47:55 2002 From: slinkie at nids.se (eledhwen_0) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 11:47:55 -0000 Subject: Muggleness in the wizard world (and wrist watches) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39589 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: >The key to this is probably found in the fact that JKR has been >extremely careful so far to associate the Witch Hunts of the 14th to >17th Century with Burnings (which are easily survivable by any half >competent witch or wizard). However, most witches/wizards in >England, >Wales and North America were *not* burnt. They were hanged - and >since it is very definite canon (QTA) that witches/wizards cannot >fly >unaided we are probably going to find that hanging is just as fatal >to them as to a Muggle. There are other ways the they could have escaped getting hanged. They could have used a severing charm to break the rope or just disapparate, but i suppose they do not wish to disapparate infront of a crowd of muggles. Not a very good way to keep the wizarding world secret. I also want to ask if anyone can explain to me how everyone (Harry the twins etc)can wear wrist watches at school? Hermione makes it clear that muggle objects such as bugging devices and walkie talkies do not work at Hogwarts. If that is true than watches shouldn't work either unless they are not infact muggle made, but if watches are wizard made I find it strange that all the muggles have them. From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sat Jun 8 14:08:25 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 14:08:25 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Death (TBAY) (WAS Dumbledore's dispensibility) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39590 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Who says Dumbledore's death has to be violent? *Who* says > Dumbledore's death has to be *violent*!?! Is that the question? > > Bangers, that's who! ;-) The Dead Flamingo Bar is quiet and empty this time of day. The chairs are piled upside down on the tables. The neon Butterbeer sign in the window is turned off. The only occupant is a slender young man with long eyelashes, who's admiring his own reflection in the mirrored bar top as he sips on a dry martini. The squeak of the door swinging open makes him look up. "Hello, George." "Marina!" George hops off his bar stool, smiling happily. His legs wobble a little, and he has to put his glass down quickly and catch himself against the bar. "Darling! Long time no see!" Marina frowns disapprovingly. "Really, George. Martinis at 9:30 in the morning?" He arches one flirtatious eyebrow. "And your point is?" "Never mind." Marina refuses to be sidetracked. "Look, George, I need you to stop being merely decorative and start being useful for a change. People have been speculating about Dumbledore's death--" "Now, Marina. You know perfectly well I'm a Snape specialist. I don't see why you keep trying to drag me into conversations about other characters." "But they're claiming his death must be Bangy! I figured since you're so anti-Bang--" "Forget it." George crosses his arms over his chest, looking determined. "I will not be dragged into non-Snape conversations. Unlike you, I still have a life." "Yeah, sucking down martinis in empty bars at 9:30 in the the morning." "I won't do it." "But George, look what Cindy says!" > Besides, canon *requires* that Dumbledore suffer a mind-blowing, > violent death. There's a pattern in the wizarding world as to how > people die, you know. George frowns. "I don't care. I will not point out that JKR thrives on setting up apparent patterns, only to break them up when they become too predictable." Marina perks up immediately. "Why, you do have a point there, George. After the first two books, I was sure that each book would end with a Harry-Voldemort confrontation, but that didn't happen in PoA, did it?" "No. And I'm not talking about it." "And after Harry and Ron missed the Sorting in CoS and PoA, I was sure that they'd miss it every time from now on, so that JKR would never have to write more than one Sorting Hat song. But in GoF they made it to the feast just fine, complete with new song." "Hmph." "And Remus Lupin breaks the pattern of DADA teachers being revealed as evil at the end of each book. This is brilliant, George! Dumbledore *must* die a natural death, simply because it would break such a long-standing and well-established pattern. Everyone expects him to go down fighting, but Jo never does give us what we expect, does she?" "I'm not saying a word." "Fine, be that way. But what about this?" Cindy: > In the face of all of that, JKR is planning a death for Dumbledore > from natural causes? He's going to slowly deteriorate, scribbling > out his will whereby he carefully decides who should get his > Pensieve? I can't get that scene to Bang. Not even a little bit. "Not interested." George rolls his eyes. "I will not waste any of my time explaining that Bangs are nothing but cheap thrills. *True* emotional impact doesn't come from fights and explosions and violence. I will not remind anyone that the big exciting climax of PoA consisted of a bunch of guys standing in a room yelling exposition at each other -- yet it's one of the most memorable and oft-discussed passages in all the books." "Another good point." Marina nods happily. "After all, what do people remember most about Cedric Diggory's death? Is it Wormtail casting AK? No. It's Voldemort coldly hissing 'Kill the spare.' That one line of dialogue has more impact than a hundred catwalk fights over rivers of lava. Jo understands this. Jo does not do cheap thrills." George has finished his martini while Marina was talking, and is now mixing himself another one. "Besides," he mutters as he places the olive just so, "one must consider irony. And helplessness. What would be more ironic than Dumbledore, one of the most powerful wizards of all time, being brought down by old age just when his power is most needed? What could make Harry feel more helpless? You can't fight natural causes. You can't even try. You can't even glare at them defiantly and call them insulting names. It would be the perfect illustration that magic can't solve everything." "It would also be FLINT-proof," Marina points out. "Let's face it, any battle-related death for Dumbledore would have us nitpickers out in droves. We'd be sitting here saying things like "Why didn't he Apparate out?' or 'None of this would've happened if he'd worn Harry's Invisibility Cloak' or 'Couldn't Phoenix tears have healed him?' But you can't nitpick a natural death. If it's gonna happen, it's gonna happen. *And* you can make it as sudden and traumatic, or as slaw and painfully drawn-out as it needs to be. It's a very flexible plot device" "I won't even get started on precedents in other texts," George continues. He's starting to warm to his subject. His face is flushing with excitement (or maybe gin). "Remember Luke Skywalker coming back to complete his Jedi training and finding Yoda dying of - - you guessed it -- old age? I was with you in that movie theater, Marina, and let me tell you, no one in the audience was saying "Hey, where's the big space battle" during that scene. No one was complaining that since Obi-Wan Kenobi died a violent death, Yoda must have one too. There wasn't a dry eye in the house, I tell you!" "But you're not talking about any of it," Marina says quickly. She really doesn't want George to launch into a rant on HP-SW parallels; chances are he wouldn't shut up for a week. "Because it's not Snape- related." "That's right." George sits back down and sips his latest drink. "Now go away. Come back when you've got a decent Snape discussion going." "No problem, George. Thanks." Marina kisses the young man on the cheek, pats his butt, and leaves the bar. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Sat Jun 8 14:24:02 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 14:24:02 -0000 Subject: Watches (Was: Re: ...(and wrist watches)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39591 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "eledhwen_0" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > I also want to ask if anyone can explain to me how everyone (Harry > the twins etc)can wear wrist watches at school? Hermione makes it > clear that muggle objects such as bugging devices and walkie talkies > do not work at Hogwarts. If that is true than watches shouldn't work > either unless they are not infact muggle made, but if watches are > wizard made I find it strange that all the muggles have them. There are still a lot of old-fashioned wind-up or self-winding watches available. That's the first possible answer. Another might be that small, self-contained, battery-operated muggle devices work. Things like flashlights (torches for the UK), watches, normal cameras, that sort of thing. It has to work primarily on DC, and not make use of sensors. An electric analog watch would work because the only thing the battery is doing is running the motor, whereas a digital watch wouldn't because it is a miniature computer. Digital computers relay upon AC or AC-like circuits. Radios would not work because they primarily work on AC and sensors. Electric lights would not work because (a) it's all AC these days, and (b) the long wires would be susceptible to interference. I see the magical interference to be the same sort of thing as the electro-magnetic interfence caused by a nuclear device. They wipe out electrical transmission and communications. Marcus From bak42 at netzero.net Sat Jun 8 14:39:33 2002 From: bak42 at netzero.net (bak42) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 07:39:33 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin's Mysterious Background In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000201c20efa$4f819360$d3983a41@bak42> No: HPFGUIDX 39592 Or another possibility is that Lupin's father was a teacher and is also named R. J. Lupin and Lupin is using his father's old case --------------------------- Brandon -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GU d- s+:-- a-- C++>$ U? L(-) E? W++ N? o? K? w+ !O M-- V? PS(+) PE Y PGP- t++ 5++ X- R tv++ b+++ DI+++ D+ G e(*) h! !r !z+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ -----Original Message----- From: prefectmarcus [mailto:prefectmarcus at yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:58 PM To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin's Mysterious Background --- In HPforGrownups at y..., alexpie at a... wrote: > In chapter 5of PoA, we are told that: "The name Professor R.J. Lupin was > stamped across one corner (of his case) in peeling letters." In chapter 18, > Lupin says (of Dumbledore): "[H]e gave me a job, when I have been shunned all > my adult life, unable to find paid work because of what I am." > The question is, why, then were the letters peeling? Was Lupin perhaps > teaching abroad, and wanted to keep it quiet? Or working as an unpaid > professor? Or is this merely Flint-y? > Ba, of Ravenclaw There are several plausible reasons. He could have been hired as a teacher (he does seem to have a knack for it) once but was let go when his condition became known. The poor man does seem to have difficulty holding down a job. Also peeling letters can be a sign of poor and/or hasty workmanship as well as poor quality of materials. Marcus Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT ________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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 4/19/02 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com Sat Jun 8 14:51:57 2002 From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 14:51:57 -0000 Subject: Muggleness in the wizard world (and wrist watches) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39593 > >competent witch or wizard). However, most witches/wizards in > >England, > >Wales and North America were *not* burnt. They were hanged - and > >since it is very definite canon (QTA) that witches/wizards cannot > >fly > >unaided we are probably going to find that hanging is just as fatal > >to them as to a Muggle. They can't fly, true, but they can Levitate. Wingardium Leviosa is taught to First Years, and there are undoubtedly even more complicated and wondrous variations of this magic which accomplished witches and wizards can perform. Also, Witches and Wizards aren't as vulnerable to dangerous situations as Muggles (that's another discussion, but think about Neville's experience with his Aunt and Uncle and you'll see what I mean). But I'll bet a fair number of them did die. There's only so much a person can do against people hell-bent on your destruction. Believe me, I know. > I also want to ask if anyone can explain to me how everyone (Harry > the twins etc)can wear wrist watches at school? Hermione makes it > clear that muggle objects such as bugging devices and walkie talkies > do not work at Hogwarts. If that is true than watches shouldn't work > either unless they are not infact muggle made, but if watches are > wizard made I find it strange that all the muggles have them. I love this idea. We have had complicated discussions of Wizarding economics and some have noted that there doesn't seem to be enough people in the Wizarding World to support the economy we see in the books. But I am certain that some "Muggle objects" that we blithely consider technological wonders are really magical object just pretending. The line between the two worlds may not be as clear-cut as we think. Why shouldn't the Wizarding World's craftsmen export to Muggles? How would we really know? Do YOU know how TiVo or your microwave or that little bitty telephone which displays web content really works? I mean really? "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." (Arthur C. Clarke) Steve of the Lexicon on summer holiday thank God From suzchiles at pobox.com Sat Jun 8 15:10:44 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 08:10:44 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Muggleness in the wizard world (and wrist watches) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39594 > -----Original Message----- > From: eledhwen_0 [mailto:slinkie at nids.se] > I also want to ask if anyone can explain to me how everyone (Harry > the twins etc)can wear wrist watches at school? Hermione makes it > clear that muggle objects such as bugging devices and walkie talkies > do not work at Hogwarts. If that is true than watches shouldn't work > either unless they are not infact muggle made, but if watches are > wizard made I find it strange that all the muggles have them. My reading is that it's not so much Muggle devices, but electrical or electronic Muggle devices. It would seem to me that ordinary wind-up, non-battery, non-quartz watches, such as a very inexpensive Timex watch, or a fine Rolex for that matter, would like work just fine at Hogwarts. Zo From aiz24 at hotmail.com Sat Jun 8 15:49:40 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 11:49:40 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin's Mysterious Background Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39595 Brandon wrote: >Or another possibility is that Lupin's father was a teacher and is also >named R. J. Lupin and Lupin is using his father's old case Good idea. Or it could be his mother who was a professor named R. J. Lupin. Amy Z -------------------------------------------------------- Dudley thought for a moment. It looked like hard work. --HP and the Philosopher's Stone -------------------------------------------------------- _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From alina at distantplace.net Sat Jun 8 16:38:58 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 12:38:58 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Watches (Was: Re: ...(and wrist watches)) References: Message-ID: <004801c20f0a$fd722100$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39596 ----- Original Message ----- From: prefectmarcus --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "eledhwen_0" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: If that is true than watches shouldn't work > either unless they are not infact muggle made, but if watches are > wizard made I find it strange that all the muggles have them. There are still a lot of old-fashioned wind-up or self-winding watches available. That's the first possible answer. I agree, I think that the watches are mechanical. Those can last a long while too, longer than then digital ones. Personally, I see wizards using a lot of muggle-like objects as long as they don't involve using electricity, but work on simple (or not so simple) mechanics. Alina. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.368 / Virus Database: 204 - Release Date: 30/05/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ck32976 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 8 21:15:05 2002 From: ck32976 at yahoo.com (ck32976) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 21:15:05 -0000 Subject: Werewolf cures??? (Very Short) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39597 All this talk about Lupin has me wondering... Lockhart says that he did a spell on a werewolf that turned him back into a man, and he no longer transformed. I know that Lockhart himself didn't do it, but he says that all othe things he claims to have done were actually accomplished, just by other people. Does this mean that there is a cure for Lupin? It may just have been an oversight, or I could not be reading it correctly, but if it has been done before, why can't it be done for Lupin? Any thoughts? carrie-Ann From alina at distantplace.net Sat Jun 8 21:33:42 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 17:33:42 -0400 Subject: Moody's Dark detectors reacting to Crouch Jr. Message-ID: <002301c20f34$2a361a60$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39598 A little while ago this group had a serious of posts when one person theorized that all of Moody's dark detectors were detecing Crouch!Moody and thus were always active not by mistake but active for a very good reason. I'm just finishing re-reading book 4 again and I realized that the theory can't be true. In the scene where Dumbledore gives Crouch Jr. the Veritaserum the Foe-glass has detected Dumbledore, Snape and McGonagall sneaking up behind Crouch!Moody and it even continued showing them after they knocked him unconcious. I think it's fair to assume the other detectors were also detecting his enemies and not him. Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ "I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.368 / Virus Database: 204 - Release Date: 29/05/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Sat Jun 8 21:42:32 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 17:42:32 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Minerva McGonagall and Sybil Trelawney are Ever... Message-ID: <50.c966566.2a33d448@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39599 The game of hedgehog croquet is progressing nicely, despite the failing light. Eloise is just lining up her shot, ready to knock Porphyria's McGonagall hedgehog out of the way with Fudge (her own favourite), when she is distracted by a whooshing sound before being knocked to the ground by yet another hedgehog, launched this time from a catapult aboard the Memory Charm paddleboat. Eyeing the little creature, who is sticking its snuffly nose in her face, she observes a little label around its neck, 'Sybil. Please look after this hedgehog', and the parchment in its mouth (Debbie's completed application for membership of the OHF). By now, the hedgehogs have all unrolled and hidden themselves in the darker recesses of the garden and the flamingo has inconsiderately flapped off to the top of the highest turret. The game having thus finished, the members of the OFH adjourn inside for drinks, and Eloise reads out Debbie's application for approval. There is muttering and head nodding and satisfied whispering, 'I never trusted that Sybil'; 'Always gave me the creeps, that one, with her constant predictions of Harry's death.' 'All that about the Grim - perhaps *she* was trying to frighten him to death'. 'Elkins, didn't you once have something to say about Divination as a Dark Art?' Eloise dashes to her office opens the filing cabinet drawer devoted entirely to Elkins' voluminous writings and pulls out a sheet ruthlessly snipped from file 35373. Yes, here it is. You were talking about the second prediction, when she seems to be posessed, >I just don't know about that voice. Its sympathies seem to lie >rather strongly with Voldemort, if you ask me. It doesn't even sound >much like it's delivering a warning at all; it sounds far more to me >as if something out there is *exulting* over what's about to happen. >The possibility has occurred to me that really effective divination >(for human beings, at any rate, as opposed to, say, Centaurs) might >necessitate opening oneself up to outside influence as a regular and >conscious practice -- actually *inviting* whatever is out there to >use you as its horse -- and that far too many of the things that >might choose to answer such an invitation could well be, like >Trelawney's prophetic voice, Not Very Nice. And while I can't claim >to know for certain what effects galloping around with Not Very Nice >Things riding on your proverbial back might be, I strongly suspect >that it wouldn't be very good for you. Even aside from the obvious >perils involved in allowing an unknown entity to hold your reins like >that, it might also be somehow intrinsically corrupting. >Perhaps spiritual possession is the only truly reliable and effective >form of Divination that human beings can manage? The Centaurs >obviously use astrology to great effect, but we've seen no evidence >yet of any wizards doing so. Perhaps all of the means of Divination >that Trelawney favors -- crystal-gazing and tea-reading and astrology >and the like -- are very weak tools in the hands of humans, while all >of the more effective tools available to them involve dealing in one >way or another with spiritual entities about which not very much is >known and which are therefore highly suspect? Yes, Sybil Trelawney has been *inviting* that dead DE to share her consciousness and has been corrupted by it, even if she was not on the side of Darkness to begin with. No wonder she tries to pass off the incident; she's all too happy for Harry to think she's an old fraud. No wonder she dislikes Hermione and takes avery opportunity to belittle her: she's far too close to blowing her cover. But *has* she only just been corrupted? Eloise noticed another file which was out on her desk, # 36757, which contains a suggestion by Ama that Sybil Trelawney, Minerva McGonagall and Tom Riddle may all have been at school at the same time. Now I don't think that McGonagall can have been (or at least, she'd have been at the top of the school when Riddle started) but Trelawney? Well, we don't know her age, do we? Or what house she was in. Was she one of handsome, popular Riddle's groupies? Is her solitary life up in her tower one of single-minded devotion to her former love? The meeting agree the application. Sybil the hedgehog miraculously sprouts wings /// <'<<<< " \\\" and flies back to Debbie with her acceptance, badge and an invitation to join the rest of the OFH for dinner. But wait, what does Eloise overhear? Is that Elkins? >You know what does sometimes trouble my sleep though? Wondering how >all of those Death Eaters actually got *home* from the graveyard. I >do worry about that sometimes. After all, how well can you apparate >if you don't even know where you *are?* And it's hard to imagine a >more awkward circumstance under which one could get oneself >splinched, isn't it? What's this, is there a mole in our midst? Why is Elkins so concerned about these DEs? Worried enough that it disturbs her sleep, even. Is her supposed sighting of a Cheshire Hedgehog none other than a ruse to infiltrate the OFH? Eloise is profoundly glad that Elkins is not a ficitional character. Otherwise the evidence would lead to only one possible conclusion: that Elkins Is Ever So Evil. ;-) Eloise (beginning to think that she's been doing this job for too long) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Sat Jun 8 21:43:24 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 17:43:24 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry and the riddle of Riddle/Apparate or Die Trying Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39600 Lysa quotes me: > > > That would be entirely consistent with Dobby's method of communicating. > Yes, > > the connection should be on his father's side. I am convinced he cannot > be > > Voldemort's grandson, as that directly contradicts what Dumbledore says > > about > > Voldemort being Slytherin's last remaining descendent. Assuming that he > > knows. After all, he isn't *really* omniscient. How can he possibly know? > > > > Ah, but what about the sorting hat wanting to put Harry into Slytherin, > saying,"Its all right here in your head..." or words to that effect. Where > did it come from? I am not sure about the Voldie as Harry's grampa, but > there has to be special signifigance, a special connection somehow. I am > not > sure that Riddle is old enough to be harry's grandfather, but uncle > perhaps. > I am definately anxious to find out! > It came partly from the connection made between Harry and Voldemort as a result of the failed curse and partly from the fact that the talents that it recognised could be those of either a Slytherin or a Gryffindor (the Hat was having difficulty deciding). The choice of what to do with those talents is critical and the Sorting Hat recognised the choice that Harry made as indicative of where he truly belonged. The Hat says that he could be great and that Slytherin could help him to greatness and then the second time he tries it on, it simply says that he would have done well in Slytherin. It is only *Harry* who interprets this negatively. What did it say to Dumbledore? Slytherin could have helped him to a different kind of greatness, too, couldn't it? .................... >But we do see Arthur Weasley apparating into his house. "Before any of them >could say anything else, there was a faint popping noise, and Mr. Weasley > appeared out of thin air at George's shoulder." (GoF 52) >So it must therefore be possible to apparate into a house since everyone was in the >kitchen at the time. I think even Harry would have noticed had Arthur walked into >the room from outside rather than just apparating in. >I am not sure where this leaves us but that is the can(n)on behind apparation. >Please forgive me if I stepped on any toes. I don't think this is a problem at all, if we assume that *residents* of a house are not covered by an anti-apparition charm. It's only like having a door key but not giving a copy to everyone else. Elkins (who thinks that Avery probably took the train): >You know what does sometimes trouble my sleep though? Wondering how >all of those Death Eaters actually got *home* from the graveyard. I >do worry about that sometimes. After all, how well can you apparate >if you don't even know where you *are?* And it's hard to imagine a >more awkward circumstance under which one could get oneself >splinched, isn't it? What I'm curious about is just how they get *to* the graveyard (or wherever Voldemort is) without knowing where they're going. OK, I suppose in the case of apparating to Voldemort's side, the Dark Mark may act as a kind of homing device, but can you apparate to a place you don't know? Do you have to have some special co-ordinates or a person or object to focus on (but not *too* closely, in case you land on them)? How did the older Weasleys manage to apparate to exactly the right place at the QWC? How can lots of people apparate to the same place without lots of accidents? Another point it raises is that to be a DE, you *have* to be able to apparate, something that requires a lot of magical skill. We're not always too kind about the DEs' abilities, are we? Can you imagine Crabbe or Goyle apparating? Perhaps there's hope for them as apparently their dads can. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sat Jun 8 21:51:18 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 14:51:18 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Apparate or die trying In-Reply-To: <3D003799.9030501@indy.net> References: <3D003799.9030501@indy.net> Message-ID: <2768193797.20020608145118@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39601 Thursday, June 6, 2002, 9:33:29 PM, Brooks Rowlett wrote: BR> Frankly I think the bottom line of all this is that JKR adds ideas as she comes BR> up with them, and doesn't think out that there are certain logical consequences BR> that would reverberate through her world... a phenomenon we have encountered a BR> LOT in Star Trek, for example. Or Oz... For the first three Oz books, Baum couldn't even make up his mind whether the Wizard (not a minor character by any assessment) was merely a well-intentioned humbug, or a malicious, opportunistic b-s--rd. (Baum finally settled on the former, after Glinda trained the Wiz to be a bone fide wizard, though I think he must have taken night courses at Hogwarts too. :) ) Anyway, because JKR worked out her series beforehand, there's far fewer continuity boo-boos than in other worlds. And getting back to Dumbledore, frankly I can't help thinking that he may be one of those people who finds broomstick flying not only safer, but more fun. (A view that I think Harry himself will likely adopt.) -- Dave From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat Jun 8 23:24:56 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 23:24:56 -0000 Subject: Werewolf cures??? (Very Short) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39602 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ck32976" wrote: > All this talk about Lupin has me wondering... Lockhart says that he > did a spell on a werewolf that turned him back into a man, and he no > longer transformed. I know that Lockhart himself didn't do it, but > he says that all othe things he claims to have done were actually > accomplished, just by other people. Does this mean that there is a > cure for Lupin? It may just have been an oversight, or I could not > be reading it correctly, but if it has been done before, why can't it > be done for Lupin? Any thoughts? > > carrie-Ann Errmm..cough:cough::::Flint?:::cough:cough. Alternatively perhaps the 'immensely complex Homorphus charm' isn't actually a permanant cure. Possibly it has to be repeated monthly and this is a deeply subtle clue that Lockhart hasn't done anything he claimed to. Either that, or it's a plant for a later book when someone will really, badly, need to untransform Lupin *right now* please... Pip From FRIED32 at aol.com Sat Jun 8 23:21:33 2002 From: FRIED32 at aol.com (XLargeFry) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 23:21:33 -0000 Subject: Moody's Dark detectors reacting to Crouch Jr. In-Reply-To: <002301c20f34$2a361a60$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39603 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Alina" wrote: > A little while ago this group had a serious of posts when one person theorized that all of Moody's dark detectors were detecing Crouch!Moody and thus were always active not by mistake but active for a very good reason. > > I'm just finishing re-reading book 4 again and I realized that the theory can't be true. In the scene where Dumbledore gives Crouch Jr. the Veritaserum the Foe-glass has detected Dumbledore, Snape and McGonagall sneaking up behind Crouch!Moody and it even continued showing them after they knocked him unconcious. I think it's fair to assume the other detectors were also detecting his enemies and not him. > > Alina of Distant Place I beg to differ,:)"the Foe Glass" is not a dark detector per-say, but works as a sort of warning in the event of oncoming attack. A sort of Wizard close circuit servailence monitor I guess. Sneakoscope are intended to warn one when there is deception taking place or when someone who cannot be trusted is within range. Therefore Crouch!Moody had to disable the Sneakoscope and the Secrecy Sensor, as he said they were picking up the deception of the students' lies about homework, etc. as well as the deception he himself was practicing. Another thing Crouch!Moody did, to protect his cover, was to borrow the Marauder's Map from Harry; because it showed him as Bartemius Crouch instead of Alastor Moody. GoF pg.475 American Hb edition "Merlin's beard," Moody whispered, staring at the map, his magical eye going haywire. "This...this is some map, Potter!" Indeed it is. Isn't it? XLargeFry aka Zephyrus aka Petros Petitoris (Stone Seeker) From nmfry at hotmail.com Sat Jun 8 23:10:34 2002 From: nmfry at hotmail.com (N Fry) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 23:10:34 +0000 Subject: Muggle products, levitation, and werewolf cures Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39604 Just my reactions to some of the various topics brought up lately... Marcus wrote: >Another might be that small, self-contained, battery-operated muggle >devices work. Things like flashlights (torches for the UK), watches, >*normal cameras*, that sort of thing. (my emphasis on cameras, not Marcus's) In PoA, Colin Creevy uses a camera. When he approaches Harry for the first time he "was clutching what looked like an ordinary Muggle camera..." (Ch 6, pg 96, US hardcover). It isn't a wizard camera, because he expresses his amazement at the fact that one of the boys in his dorm said that the pictures would move if he developed them in a special potion. Later, in Ch 7 (pg 109) when Colin is taking pictures of Quidditch practice, his camera is only described as making a clicking noise (nothing else special about it). Meanwhile, in GoF (Ch 18, pg 302) the photographer from the Daily Prophet has "a large black camera that was smoking slightly." I can't find the page reference now, but I seem to remember the wizard camera later being described as making a popping noise and giving off puffs of colored smoke when pictures are taken. I may be wrong about that, though... Steve of the Lexicon wrote: >They can't fly, true, but they can Levitate. Wingardium Leviosa is >taught to First Years, and there are undoubtedly even more complicated and >wondrous variations of this magic which accomplished witches and wizards >can perform. _Quidditch_Through_the_Ages_ supports this in the chapter about the evolution of the flying broomstick (pg 1): "No spell yet devised enables wizards to fly unaided in human form. Levitation is commonplace, but our ancestors were not content with hovering five feet above the ground." Witches/wizards who were hung during the witch trials could have simply pretended to die as they hovered at the end of the noose. carrie-Ann wrote: >All this talk about Lupin has me wondering... Lockhart says that he did a >spell on a werewolf that turned him back into a man, and he no longer >transformed. I know that Lockhart himself didn't do it, but he says that >all othe things he claims to have done were actually accomplished, just by >other people. Does this mean that there is a cure for Lupin? This reminds me of something I've been thinking about. In PoA, Lupin tells the trio, "I was a small boy when I recieved the bite. My parents tried everything, but *in those days there was no cure*" (ch 18, pgs 352-3). Does he mean that there is a cure now? In the next sentence, he comments that the Wolfsbane Potion is a very recent discovery. I don't think he's referring to it when he says "cure," but the wording seems a bit confusing to me. Maybe Wolfsbane can prevent people from becoming werewolves if used soon enough after the bite, but can't cure them if they are already werewolves (although it does make them safer by helping them keep their rational minds...) ~ Nik (who finds herself paying *a lot* more attention to picky little details while rereadings the books, thanks to all the posts she's been reading since joining this group) _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From ck32976 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 8 23:38:10 2002 From: ck32976 at yahoo.com (ck32976) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 23:38:10 -0000 Subject: Werewolf cures??? (Very Short) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39605 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > Errmm..cough:cough::::Flint?:::cough:cough. I feel like a total idiot even asking this question, but I've been seen FLINT everywhere. It isn't refering to Marcus Flint, or if it is, I really don't get the connection. I'm sure it is a very simple explanation, but as I've not been able to keep track of the list for a while, I'm so very lost on this one... Please help! Carrie-Ann From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat Jun 8 23:54:56 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 23:54:56 -0000 Subject: Werewolf cures??? (Very Short) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39606 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ck32976" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > > Errmm..cough:cough::::Flint?:::cough:cough. > > > I feel like a total idiot even asking this question, but I've been > seen FLINT everywhere. It isn't refering to Marcus Flint, or if it > is, I really don't get the connection. I'm sure it is a very > simple explanation, but as I've not been able to keep track of the > list for a while, I'm so very lost on this one... > > Please help! > > Carrie-Ann A FLINT is named after Marcus Flint, the Slytherin Quidditch Captain who appeared in PS/SS as a Sixth year, but was still at school in PoA. JKR admitted she'd made a mistake over Marcus. It's become a list nickname for anything that might actually be a genuine error by JKR. Not sure who invented the term - was it Pippin? Hope this helps Pip From ck32976 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 9 00:00:52 2002 From: ck32976 at yahoo.com (ck32976) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 00:00:52 -0000 Subject: Werewolf cures??? (Very Short) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39607 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ck32976" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > > > Errmm..cough:cough::::Flint?:::cough:cough. > > > > > > I feel like a total idiot even asking this question, but I've been > > seen FLINT everywhere. It isn't refering to Marcus Flint, or if it > > is, I really don't get the connection. I'm sure it is a very > > simple explanation, but as I've not been able to keep track of the > > list for a while, I'm so very lost on this one... > > > > Please help! > > > > Carrie-Ann > > A FLINT is named after Marcus Flint, the Slytherin Quidditch Captain > who appeared in PS/SS as a Sixth year, but was still at school in > PoA. JKR admitted she'd made a mistake over Marcus. It's become a > list nickname for anything that might actually be a genuine error by > JKR. Not sure who invented the term - was it Pippin? > > Hope this helps > Pip Makes perfect sense! Thank you so much for clearing that up for me. Carrie-Ann (Who would be thrilled to see Lupin given back a normal life.) From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 9 00:12:05 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 00:12:05 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall is Ever So Evil Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39608 Having been looking through CoS, a couple of pointers occurred to me. Why did Dumbledore sent *Snape* out to look for Harry and Ron? Why not McGonagall, their head of House? Surely someone else could have taken care of the Sorting for her when two of her own students were missing? Have we seen any other detentions given by McGonagall? Porphyria is right, that first detention in the Forbidden Forest was incredibly dangerous. The ones given by Snape on the other hand, are perceptively nasty (and seem to be tailored to individual students pet dislikes) but essentially safe. (They can even display a sense of humour - I do wonder if Lockhart was given a hint by Snape that Harry would be just delighted to help answer his fan letters.) Why when Ginny is taken does McGonagall say after 'We shall have to send the students home tomorrow' (sensible enough)does she add 'This is the end of Hogwarts' (CoS UK paperback p. 216) - wouldn't something along the lines of 'and once the students are gone we'll tear the place apart brick by brick if we have to' be more in line with Dumbledore's wishes? (Snape's comment in this scene could be seen as a little barbed towards McGonagall as well). Pip From nithya_rachel at hotmail.com Sun Jun 9 00:52:45 2002 From: nithya_rachel at hotmail.com (errolowl) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 00:52:45 -0000 Subject: Minerva McGonagall is Ever So Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39609 Pip wrote: > Having been looking through CoS, a couple of pointers occurred to >me. > Why did Dumbledore sent *Snape* out to look for Harry and Ron? Why > not McGonagall, their head of House? Surely someone else could >have taken care of the Sorting for her when two of her own students >were missing? Whoohoo. Consider this scene just after Harry & Ron arrive by Ford Anglia, & Snape goes to get McGonagall: >>Harry had seen Professor McGonagall angry on several occasions, but either he had forgotten just how thin her mouth could go, or he had never seen her this angry before. She raised her wand the moment she entered; Harry and Ron both flinched, but she merely pointed it at the empty fireplace, where flames suddenly erupted<< (CS 5) What's this? Harry and Ron actually think she's going to use her wand *on them*? Hit them with a curse or turn them into slugs? What kind of person do they think she *is* anyway? Do they subconsciously detect her malevolence? They have never been so jumpy in Dumbledore's presence, even in a similar I'll-have-to-expel-you situation ? and Dumbledore certainly has greater authority to do so. Ummm, if only I didn't keep finding so many instances where she is angry. And here we thought Snape was angst ridden! Errol, who'd like to root for Redeemable Evil! McGonagall. (Lets say she started out with malevolent zeal, but now every time her mouth twitches in a would-be-smile, she gets to like that kid Potter a little more. She sells out Dumbledore but can't quite see Potter killed. Just maybe, she'll turn out on the right side after all is said and done! ;-) From cindysphynx at comcast.net Sun Jun 9 03:10:08 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 03:10:08 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Death (TBAY) (WAS Dumbledore's dispensibility) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39610 An owl arrives on the deck of the Big Bang and drops a parchment into the Captain's lap. This is highly unusual, as most owls keep a safe distance from her oversized FEATHERBOAs. The Captain snatches up the parchment. Why, it's an invitation! How festive! The Captain is rarely invited to social functions, what with the many *restraining orders* entered against her. And this event sounds like real *fun*! Early morning drinking in the local tavern with a genuine Theory Bay celebrity ?- George, on shore leave from LOLLIPOPS. The Captain apparates into the Dead Flamingo Bar, where a young man is deep in conversation with a striking and clever young woman. The bartender mops the counter in front of the Captain. "What'll it be, ma'am?" He hesitates. "It is 'ma'am', isn't it?" "Water," the Captain barks. "How do you take that water? We have Perrier, Pellegrino and Evian." The Captain narrows her eyes. "Boil it!" she hisses. The bartender slips his hand into an oven mitt and passes her a goblet brimming with the scalding liquid. The Captain gulps it in one, slams the goblet to the counter, and wheels around to confront George. The empty goblet is still smoking. "I couldn't help but overhear your conversation," the Captain says in a low voice. "And I have to tell you ? and don't take this the wrong way or anything ? but you don't seem to be putting your heart into your Banging. I find myself wondering whether you even *believe* in Banging, to be honest with you, George. I mean, it sounds like you'd prefer Dumbledore's death to be something out of a Sunday night movie of the week or something. "That is so *wrong*. The Old Mentor *has* to die in a certain way. He has to die doing something heroic for others *and* he should make eye contact with his young prot?g? before he makes the ultimate sacrifice. He is not supposed to just languish in the hospital while others do the dirty work." George gulps the last of his martini and beckons for another one. "But," he says, "what about precedents in other texts. Remember Luke Skywalker coming back to complete his Jedi training and finding Yoda dying of -- you guessed it -- old age? There wasn't a dry eye in the house, I tell you--" "Look," the Captain broke in, "Let's get a few things straight right now. In Star Trek II, 'The Wrath of Khan', Spock dies, and it is *gut-wrenching*. He does *not* die of natural causes. He dies fixing the engines so the rest of the crew can warp their way out of the range of Khan's photon torpedoes, OK? In the original Star Wars movies, Obi Wan does not quietly expire in his sleep. He is in a wicked laser battle with Darth Vader, and he throws the fight. In the LoTR movie, Ian McClellan plunges to his death off of a rickety catwalk into a river of lava so that those other weird people can survive. So that's *it*, OK. Old Mentor types must die doing something *heroic*." "But what about Jane Au?" "Shhhhh!" The Captain presses a finger to George's lips. "I will not consider any other parallels. I do not wish to hear more about Jane Austin, OK? Or Narnia. Or that newfangled Star Trek. Or that hideous Star Wars prequel. I haven't seen *any* of that stuff, so it didn't happen, OK?" George leans forward in his chair, deciding to fight back. "But . . . but JKR creates tension and drama all the time without Banging. Need I remind you that the big exciting climax of PoA consisted of a bunch of guys standing in a room yelling exposition at each other -- yet it's one of the most memorable and oft-discussed passages in all the books." "Do you go to the movies, George?" the Captain asks. "Wh -- what?" he stammers. "You heard me. Do you go to the movies? You know, cinema, film, motion pictures? You remember the climax from the Oscar-winning epic 'Memory Charm Symposium', don't you? Where the Elkins character explains all about proper Banging? Does that ring any bells?" George shakes his head slowly. "Well, as chance would have it, it is playing on the large-screen TV in the bar *right now*. And pay attention, George, because this is *important*!" *************** Elkins in Message 39,033: "This is the Great and Powerful Captain Cindy's idea of an Exciting Cinematic Moment?" "*Dialogue?*" "Dialogue. A conversation. A *Confessional.* A 'This Time, On Oprah' moment. Ooooooh," Elkins simpers in a high nasty falsetto. "Will Neville and Harry talk about their *feeeeeeeeeeeelings,* Cindy? Will Harry go and make Neville a nice comforting cup of *tea?* Hand him a *hankie,* perhaps? Tell him, 'Oh, Neville, how I feel your pain? For I, too, come from a tragically-broken home, and I too have never known the comfort and support of a warm and loving family?' And then, maybe once they're done with all of that *delving,* they can share a Great Big Hug? And then go on to talk about which *girls* they like, perhaps?" "Pah!" spits Elkins. "Pah! That's not *Bang,* Cindy. That's *girl stuff!* It's a chick flick! It's an after-school special! It's a soap opera! It's a Kaffee Klatsch! It is just plain *Weak,* is what it is. It. Is. A. DUD!" ************* "Whoa!" George exclaimed, his eyes wide. "That was *intense*! I really *felt* that!" The Captain scowled. "You're missing the *point*. The point is that dialogue is a *Dud*. Dialogue can be Bangy *as dialogue goes*, but it can *never* carry a hugely important plot twist. The Bang in the Shrieking Shack wasn't the dialogue. No way. It was the *suspense*. It was the description. It was the shock of realizing that the reader had been *had* on a number of levels. We learned Sirius wasn't Evil, he was innocent. Lupin wasn't Evil, but he was a monster. The Shrieking Shack wasn't haunted, it was a werewolf sanctuary. Peter was alive and was Ron's Pet. And most importantly, we learn that Snape is a *screw-up*! "In fact," the Captain says, her voice rising, "when people around here criticize the Shrieking Shack scene, do you know what they complain about, George? The dialogue! Did you know that? PoA is on the big-screen TV now, and just *listen* to some of this dialogue: ************** "Not at all, Padfoot, old friend," said Lupin, who was now rolling up his sleeves. "And will you, in turn, forgive me for believing you were the spy?" "THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE DIED!" roared Black. "DIED RATHER THAN BETRAY YOUR FRIENDS, AS WE WOULD HAVE DONE FOR YOU!" **************** "Elkins may be onto something there, George," the Captain says. "Dialogue is important. Bad dialogue can get in the way -- it can *ruin* fiction. But dialogue can't *create* explosive fiction -- a true monster Bang. Not when the underlying Bangy events aren't there to make the dialogue matter. And watching Dumbledore lie there, wearing robes that open in the back, his twinkle growing ever more dim, is totally *Dud-worthy*." George spits his olive pit into his martini glass and fixes the Captain with an insolent stare. "I'm not convinced," he says. "Bangs are nothing but cheap thrills. *True* emotional impact doesn't come from fights and explosions and violence. After all, what do people remember most about Cedric Diggory's death? Is it Wormtail casting AK? No. It's Voldemort coldly hissing 'Kill the spare.' That one line of dialogue has more impact than a hundred catwalk fights over rivers of lava. Jo understands this. Jo does not do cheap thrills." The Captain rises from her seat, her palms flat against the table. "George," she hisses. "The Bang in Cedric's death wasn't Wormtail's one line of dialogue. It was the *action* and the *description of the aftermath*! Harry is in intense pain, he can't see, he is almost physically sick, his friend crashes to the ground, spread-eagled. "If anything, Cedric's death in the graveyard proves that JKR is *never* going to look to the grieving over Dumbledore's demise as the source of a Bang. She gives Harry *no time at all* to grieve for Cedric. No, she moves right on to the action: "And then, before Harry's mind had accepted what he was seeing, before he could feel anything but numb disbelief, he felt himself being pulled to his feet." Does Harry have time to cradle Cedric's head and weep? No way! JKR gives Harry exactly *two sentences* to take in Cedric's death before she moves right on to having Wormtail cut off his own hand." The waitress arrives with the check, groping her pockets in search of a pen. The Captain squints at her name badge: "Jenny From Ravensclaw." Jenny scribbles something onto her pad, passed it to the Captain, and hurries off without waiting for her tip. The Captain opens Jenny's note: "Then why all the references to his age in GoF?" George peers over the Captain's shoulder. "Well, what about that, then?" "Consider it a FLINT-avoidance maneuver," the Captain says easily. "Dumbledore is supposed to be more powerful than anyone in the entire series. McGonagall says, "Everyone knows you're the only one You-Know-oh, all right, *Voldemort*, was frightened of." Dumbledore defeated Grindewald. Dumbledore could be the Minister of Magic but chooses not to. Dumbledore is too noble to use the powers Voldemort has, but Dumbledore sure has them. "So what is JKR to do with all *that*? Well, she has to *weaken* Dumbledore before she can credibly kill him, doesn't she? She has to show him becoming weary, worn down, weak. That way, when someone pushes Dumbledore off of a rickety catwalk into a river of lava, the reader will *believe it* and won't cry out, 'But wait! Dumbledore is too *powerful* for that to work!' "Yeah, Dumbledore is fading all right, but he won't fade straight to the grave. He's going to get a push from someone ? hopefully from a close and trusted friend." The Captain leans forward, her nose inches from George's trembling lips. "Bang!" she whispers. Just then, a young girl approaches timidly, clutching an autograph book to her chest. She presses a pen into George's hands and asks him to write a note -- "to Katherine". Kissing him softly on the cheek, she mumbles something that the Captain can barely make out: "Dumbledore dying of natural causes *can* be Bangy. If JKR does it well, it can even be more Bangy than anything involving lava and a catwalk. It just happens that lava and a catwalk happen to be easier to make Bangy than natural causes." George flashes her a sly smile and scribbles something in the autograph book. "The best Bangs are the easy Bangs," it reads. ************** Cindy *************** For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin20Files/hypoth eticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From katzefan at yahoo.com Sun Jun 9 03:26:18 2002 From: katzefan at yahoo.com (katzefan) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 03:26:18 -0000 Subject: Apparate/Dumbledore, detentions, Lockhart, EvilMcGonagall Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39611 Dave Hardenbrook wrote: <* large snip *> >And getting back to Dumbledore, frankly I can't help thinking that >he may be one of those people who finds broomstick flying not >only safer, but more fun. <*snip*> > >-- >Dave Or maybe he borrows that flying motorbike on occasion.... :-) ***************** carrie-Ann wrote: >All this talk about Lupin has me wondering... Lockhart says that >he did a spell on a werewolf that turned him back into a man, >and he no longer transformed. I know that Lockhart himself >didn't do it, but he says that all othe things he claims to have >done were actually accomplished, just by other people. Does >this mean that there is a cure for Lupin? I'm not sure whether Lockhart himself knows what's true and what isn't anymore - I think it's quite possible the 'immensely complex Homorphus Charm' is the product of a fevered imaginatioin (his) ... although it will be interesting if it turns up somewhere in one of the classes in 5th, 6th or 7th years. **************** Elsewhere carrie-Ann wrote >Carrie-Ann (Who would be thrilled to see Lupin given back a normal life.) Noooo, he's *much* more interesting as a Hurt/Comfort subject .... :-) ****************** bluesqueak wrote >Having been looking through CoS, a couple of pointers >occurred to me. >Why did Dumbledore sent *Snape* out to look for Harry and >Ron? Why not McGonagall, their head of House? Surely >someone else could have taken care of the Sorting for her >when two of her own students were missing? >Have we seen any other detentions given by McGonagall? >Porphyria is right, that first detention in the Forbidden Forest >was incredibly dangerous. The ones given by Snape on the >other hand, are perceptively nasty (and seem to be tailored to >individual students' pet dislikes) but essentially safe. In CoS there's no indication as to why Snape is standing behind Ron and Harry when they're speculating about his absence from the table, nor who sent him, if anyone. Could he have volunteered to fetch them so the Sorting Ceremony could get on without interruption? There doesn't seem to be any mystery about the boys' late arrival (they've barely gotten into Snape's office when he says 'So ... the train isn't good enough for the famous Harry Potter and his faithful sidekick Weasley" and then unrolls the latest issue of the Evening Prophet, with the headline Flying Ford Anglia Mystifies Muggles. It may be that their rather abrupt arrival at the school (with only minor injuries in the process) was also clocked as it happened, so there was no real need to 'search' for them (they were on school grounds; they hadn't crashed into the Forbidden Forest) and McGonagall felt no particular need to go get them herself. It was a different story with Ginny's disappearance [now that somebody's raised the point :-)]; you *would* think McGonagall, as second in command, would be planning some sort of rescue/ recovery operation after the students had left. Doesn't it say in one of the books (can't recall which) that nothing in the forest will hurt Hagrid, or (presumably) anyone who's with him? Which, if true, *really* doesn't come anywhere near satisfactorily explaining why they split up into two groups! (Perhaps that was an impromptu decision by Hagrid?) ************** "cindysphynx" wrote: <*snip*> >First up, look what McGonagall teaches Harry. This is *Harry* >we're talking about, the baby who defeated Lord Voldemort, the >wizard who may be called upon to save the wizarding world >itself. Is McGonagall teaching him the Animagus transformation >or how to Apparate -- skills that might save the boy's life? >Heck no! She is teaching him how to turn beetles into buttons, >needles into matches, porcupines into pin-cushions. And what >exactly is Harry to do with these oh-so formidable >Transfiguration skills? "Hang on, Lord Voldemort! Once I >change this match into a needle, I am going to *prick* you to >death!" Not sure if this was a tongue-in-cheek post, but if not ... these *are* only first-year students, and in magic, presumably as in anything else, you have to develop your skills, starting with the baby stuff. You wouldn't turn a first-year physics student loose in a nuclear power plant or let a first-year med student do open- heart surgery.... Percy Weasley said pretty much that very thing to Hermione during the banquet after they were Sorted ("I *do* hope they start straight away, there's so much to learn, I'm particularly interested in Transfiguration, you know, turning something into something else, of course, it's supposed to be very difficult --" "You'll be starting small, just matches into needles and tha sort of thing --") (PS/SS, paperback, p. 94) ************** "ssk7882" >First off, McGonagall's very appearance on Privet Drive that >morning is *highly* suspicious. Just what precisely is she >doing there, anyway? She implies that she has been waiting >there for Dumbledore -- and yet she keeps herself hidden from >him, only revealing herself once he makes it clear that he >knows perfectly well that she is there. <* further snip*> >And what does she do then? Does she resume her human >form so that she can speak with this man she has supposedly >been waiting for all day long? Does she greet him, as one >might expect? >No. She does not. She lurks in the shadows, watching him >carefully. She does not reveal herself to him until he leaves her >no other choice: This is just a little, persnickety objection ... she *isn't* skulking in the shadows. She is sitting on the Dursleys' garden wall, as she has been doing for several hours now (she was there when Vernon Dursley arrived home from work; PS/SS, paperack, p. 10): "Mr. Dursley might have been drifting into an uneasy sleep, but the cat on the wall outside showed no sign of sleepiness." PS/ SS, paperback, p. 12. This would probably be at *least* four hours after his arrival at home ... perhaps later, depending on when the evening news would have run (10 p.m.? 11?) Also (on p. 12) Dumbeldore spots the cat long before he actually walks up to it and addresses it ("... he looked up suddenly at the cat, which was still staring at him from the other end of the street.") *Then* he puts out the streetlights, puts the Put-Outer back in his pocket, walks down to number four and sits down beside the cat. But the rest of the evidence is intriguing, to say the least. Is McGonagall angry because of Voldemort's downfall, or is she just one of those people who feel that decorum should be maintained no matter what the circumstances? (On the surface, at least, she appears annoyed that so many witches and wizards are celebrating with so much abandon that "... even the Muggles have noticed something's going on. It was on their news.") <* large snip*> >There are also strange off-notes in McGonagall's >characterization in this scene. Nowhere else in canon does >McGonagall fawn. She is not the sycophantic type. But she >certainly does fawn all over Albus Dumbledore in this scene. >It's actually quite disgusting: >"'Everyone knows you're the only one You-Know -- oh, all right, >*Voldemort* -- was frightened of.'" >'You flatter me,' said Dumbledore calmly. 'Voldemort had >powers I will never have.' >'Only because you're too -- well -- *noble* to use them.'" >Oh, ick. "Oh, Albus. You're so *noble!*' Blech. Ugh. It does >seem grotesquely out of character for the ordinarily brisk and >sensible McGonagall, doesn't it? For her to start *simpering* >like that? <*snip*> >I also find myself wondering about all of that "too noble to use >all the powers at your disposal" stuff. Just how long has >McGonagall been feeding Dumbledore that line, anyway? From >the very start, perhaps? Might that not in fact have been one of >her *jobs?* To try to ensure that no matter how ugly the conflict >might become, Dumbledore would continue to place limits on >his own actions? To try to subvert and weaken the enemy? "Oh ick" is right. That *was* an odd glitch in her character; I haven't seen anything similar anywhere else in the books - the closest was in CoS after Colin Creevey is Petrified, and she says 'What does this *mean,* Albus?' which again comes across as a really, really bad and mouldy clich?. However, it doesn't say much for their estimation of Dumbledore, if they really believe that having McGonagall smarming all over him is going to be enough to cajole him out of doing what he knows must be done (the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, maybe :-D) Then again, nobody ever said Evil Overlords were *smart*. <*snip*> >Now, wouldn't that be something. Not Dumbledore's left-hand, >but his right-hand. Not the head of House Slytherin, but the >head of House Gryffindor. Not the Designated Red Herring, but >instead the very first member of the wizarding world that the >reader ever * met?* <*snip*> >-- Elkins, who will happily exchange her SUCCESS: the >Dumbledore Variation for a whomping big glass of SUCCESS: >the McGonagall Yeah!!! Someone wrote quite some time ago that she's an underwritten and boring character ... maybe this is why. McGonagall is such a Cipher (as opposed to Snape, who is an Enigma, which is something else entirely) that despite the fact she's often front and centre in so many scenes, she's actually someone you tend to glance past. Everything she does can be read in either of two ways: either she's a strict, somewhat humourless disciplinarian (but essentially fair), or she's just Eeeeeevil to the Core. Katzefan, who is now more anxious than over for OoP to hit the stores From j-lipton at nwu.edu Sun Jun 9 04:54:46 2002 From: j-lipton at nwu.edu (Jamie Lipton) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 23:54:46 -0500 Subject: Apparate or Die Trying Message-ID: <04e501c20f71$c73bc7a0$03fea8c0@death-computer> No: HPFGUIDX 39612 Grey Wolf wrote: >Which reminds me: we see that the clock goes from "at the office" to "traveling" for a while before Arthur arrives ("at home"), so apparating *does* take a while - even if it's not visible in either place for the duration (take note, Cindy!). This piece of canon supports my personal theory that 'Apparating' and 'Disapparating' are actually two different processes. When Arthur Weasley left work, he Disapparated from the Ministry and then Apparated to the Burrow. As far as getting splinched goes, it's all in the timing of the two events. Maybe there are more steps to the process we don't even know about. - Jamie (who has wisely elected to end her post before she gets any sudden ideas on this topic that will provoke yellow flags to rain down on the Chicagoland area) From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Jun 9 06:55:32 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 06:55:32 -0000 Subject: Moody's Dark detectors reacting to Crouch Jr. In-Reply-To: <002301c20f34$2a361a60$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39613 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Alina" wrote: > A little while ago this group had a serious of posts when one person theorized that all of Moody's dark detectors were detecing Crouch!Moody and thus were always active not by mistake but active for a very good reason. > > I'm just finishing re-reading book 4 again and I realized that the theory can't be true. In the scene where Dumbledore gives Crouch Jr. the Veritaserum the Foe-glass has detected Dumbledore, Snape and McGonagall sneaking up behind Crouch!Moody and it even continued showing them after they knocked him unconcious. I think it's fair to assume the other detectors were also detecting his enemies and not him. > Ah. I've actually thought of that and was on the brink of posting when I remembered something. In PoA, Ron buys Harry a Sneakoscope; while he was tying it Errol, it whistled - because Ron shouldn't have been using Errol for such a distance. So, Sneakoscopes apparantly detect deception regardless of who the deceiver is - even when it's the person handling it. It's not sensitive to the direction of the deception, it seems, only to its presence. The Foe-glass, by definition, has to show *somebody's* enemies. There's probably some way you can recalibrate it so it will focuse on you. It would have come extremely useful for Crouch!Moody , which is probably why he didn't diconnect it. Naama From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Jun 9 08:47:13 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 08:47:13 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Ever So Evil McGonagall - NOT!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39614 Hi, I've just had a stroke of genius: McGonagall *cannot* be an undercover DE, cannot be Ever So Evil - because McGonagall appeared on the Foe Glass as Crouch!Moody's foe!!! So there! Naama From chetah27 at hotmail.com Sun Jun 9 06:42:25 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 06:42:25 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's death needs a little bang in it ? (WAS- Re: Dumbledore's Death) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39615 Cindy: > When Dumbledore goes out, he has to go down *swinging* and everyone > has to be right there watching but unable to help. Ideally, he'll > save a few people on his way out, preferably Harry. Any cliche at > all for Dumbledore's death is fine by me. He can be diffusing a > bomb and can accidently cut the *red* wire, if you like. Just so > long as Dumbledore makes an enormous *Bang* when he dies, I'll be > satisfied. I have a hard time seeing Dumbledore going down guns ablazing and such. I just don't grasp how it can be set up reasonably. Dumbledore is very very wise, he also has a healthy distrust of Voldemort, plus spies and a way of knowing what people are doing. I just don't see him getting killed in such a dramatic way unless something induces him to show up on Voldemort's front doorstep nancing about with a bullseye on his forehead. And also, I like what Marina said about this way of Dumbeldore's death being shown to us: "one must consider irony. And helplessness. What would be more ironic than Dumbledore, one of the most powerful wizards of all time, being brought down by old age just when his power is most needed?" Cinday again: > In the face of all of that, JKR is planning a death for Dumbledore > from natural causes? He's going to slowly deteriorate, scribbling > out his will whereby he carefully decides who should get his > Pensieve? I can't get that scene to Bang. Not even a little bit. *sits for a moment and let's her imagination go to work* I can get that to bang, even if it be just a little. Okay, Dumbledore on his deathbed, Harry beside him. Harry stays with him and hears all the wisdom Dumbledore offers him in his last moments of life...and while this goes on, something happens- Voldemort strikes, in an attempt to get Harry and gets someone else, or some other nice Little Evil Thing....and somene close to Harry dies. Someone comes to get Dumbledore just as he dies, and they find Harry. Harry runs off to find out what's happening because he hears the name of a friend of his, and he get's there only just too late... Ooh, the grief, the guilt...the bang! =P Jenny: > I have a bad feeling that Harry will be there when not one, but > several of the > people he cares about die. However, I am not sure why that is. Do > we feel that Harry needs to witness these deaths because they will > help make him more of a man? I should just like to point out that Harry has witnessed quite a few deaths, how much more of a man does he need to become if these will indeed help him to do so? Jenny: > Or do we think JKR is just going for the > heartstring pulling? *Or* is Harry actually witnessing these deaths > the only way for us to believe them? If I read in OoP that Harry > simply found out that Dumbledore/Hagrid/Lupin/Dobby has died, I'll > be suspicious because Harry didn't see it happen. I don't know if I'd be suspicious of the death..I mean, if there's proof and someone is dead, done, and buried...then I'll believe that someone died. Perhaps not the person Harry thinks died, but someone did indeed Die. I would more than likely be extremely suspicious of the WAY they died, if Harry was not there to witness it. But if Harry gets word that any of the above mentioned died, I'd definately need to see a body to believe that anyone at all died. ~Aldrea From alina at distantplace.net Sun Jun 9 08:55:21 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 04:55:21 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] TBAY: Ever So Evil McGonagall - NOT!! References: Message-ID: <000c01c20f93$63d1d3e0$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39616 "Hi, I've just had a stroke of genius: McGonagall *cannot* be an undercover DE, cannot be Ever So Evil - because McGonagall appeared on the Foe Glass as Crouch!Moody's foe!!! So there! Naama" Reply: Also, if McGonagall is a DE then either Voldemort doesn't know about it (likely?) or he purposefully didn't let the other DE's know about her when he was saying who was missing and why from their gathering in the end of GoF. He mentioned six people, three dead (I believe), one running away - Karkaroff, one loyal - Crouch, and Snape. Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ "I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.368 / Virus Database: 204 - Release Date: 29/05/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aiz24 at hotmail.com Sun Jun 9 08:58:10 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 04:58:10 -0400 Subject: Ever So Evil McGonagall - NOT!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39617 Faith--oops, I mean Naama--wrote: >I've just had a stroke of genius: > >McGonagall *cannot* be an undercover DE, cannot be Ever So Evil - >because McGonagall appeared on the Foe Glass as Crouch!Moody's foe!!! > >So there! Naama, Naama, Naama. You really think a stroke of genius, or for that matter a stroke of common sense, is going to deter these ESE-plotters? They aren't naive. As soon ask them to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, or that those little numbers on the backs of highway signs aren't instructions for the invaders in black helicopters. We know those DEs. Just because they're all on Voldemort's side doesn't mean they're all on *one another's* side. Maybe McGonagall was poised to stab Right-Hand Man Crouch Jr. in the back so that *she* could be Voldemort's number one, hence appeared in his Foe-Glass as an enemy as implacable as Dumbledore. Or maybe Crouch never did recalibrate the Foe-Glass, it's still rigged to show *Moody's* enemies, and Snape, Dumbledore and McGonagall are *all* Ever So Evil. Amy Z who's Faithful but knows when she's beaten _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sun Jun 9 09:03:32 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 09:03:32 -0000 Subject: Werewolf cures?/FLINT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39618 Carrie-Ann wrote: > All this talk about Lupin has me wondering... Lockhart says that he > did a spell on a werewolf that turned him back into a man, and he no > longer transformed. I know that Lockhart himself didn't do it, but > he says that all othe things he claims to have done were actually > accomplished, just by other people. Does this mean that there is a > cure for Lupin? It may just have been an oversight, or I could not > be reading it correctly, but if it has been done before, why can't it > be done for Lupin? Any thoughts? > > Carrie-Ann The most plausible explanation is that, in that particular book, Lockhart was not only usurping someone's acts, but was also inventing for all he was worth, and there is no cure to lycanthropy. That way, he could sell more books (and we know he's not the one to be burdened by scrupules when it comes to selling his books). Carrie-Ann again: > I feel like a total idiot even asking this question, but I've been > seen FLINT everywhere. It isn't refering to Marcus Flint, or if it > is, I really don't get the connection. I'm sure it is a very simple > explanation, but as I've not been able to keep track of the list for > a while, I'm so very lost on this one... > > Please help! > > Carrie-Ann A quick visit to Inish Alley (our database of ever-growing number of acronyms) reveals: F.L.I.N.T. (Flint-Like Inconsistencies Nitpicked Triumphantly) (reference to the Slytherin Quidditch captain, whom JKR accidentally kept on as captain after he should actually have left school: a genuine admitted mistake). FLINT is invoked at any time someone believes JKR has made an internal inconsistency of the Potterverse: something that goes against the rules she has set herself. Sometimes, it's interesting to note, those errors can be explained even when JKR herself admits it wasn't thought out to be like that: Flint, Marcus, failed his OWLS and had to repeat a year, which is why he's still around in PoA. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who prefers solving FLINTs to finding them, but is generally alone when doing so From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sun Jun 9 09:12:50 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 09:12:50 -0000 Subject: Harry and the riddle of Riddle/Apparate or Die Trying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39619 Eloise wrote: > Another point it raises is that to be a DE, you *have* to be able to > apparate, something that requires a lot of magical skill. We're not > always too kind about the DEs' abilities, are we? Can you imagine > Crabbe or Goyle apparating? Perhaps there's hope for them as > apparently their dads can. > > Eloise Lately I've noticed that we have been picking on several of the DEs over their lack of power - Wormtail especially - but there is something that we must take in mind. Even if some of the DEs may look useless, we know that they can all apparate and most of them (if not all) can cast the unforgivable curses, which take a good deal of energy and skill, if we can trust Crouch!Moody (which I believe we can). Wormtail, even, is an animagus, reported to be a very difficult ability, and he was one before being of age! They may look pathetic powerless, but they're not. They're powerful, mean and VERY bad. And now, for a possible explanation which I'm not sure I believe: could Voldemort have GIVEN them powers, like on loan, in exchange for their helps? That would explain why people with the constitutions of stones (Crabbe and Goyle) and nearly as intelligent, can cast those difficult spells. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From jmt59home at aol.com Sun Jun 9 09:24:10 2002 From: jmt59home at aol.com (jtdogberry) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 09:24:10 -0000 Subject: Apparate/Dumbledore, detentions, Lockhart, EvilMcGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39620 Ok, I am beginging to think that I am the only person who doesn't think Mcgonagall is evil but then again... --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "katzefan" wrote: > bluesqueak wrote > > >Having been looking through CoS, a couple of pointers > >occurred to me. > > >Why did Dumbledore sent *Snape* out to look for Harry and > >Ron? Why not McGonagall, their head of House? Surely > >someone else could have taken care of the Sorting for her > >when two of her own students were missing? He didn't. Snape noticed that they weren't there because it is a typical Snape thing to do, keep an eye on Harry and get him into trouble hence the reason he wouldn't have fetch Mcgonagall, to give him some time to gloat and that she was busy with the sorting. > >Have we seen any other detentions given by McGonagall? > >Porphyria is right, that first detention in the Forbidden Forest > >was incredibly dangerous. The ones given by Snape on the > >other hand, are perceptively nasty (and seem to be tailored to > >individual students' pet dislikes) but essentially safe. > But as Hagrid says it had to be done. The chances are that if the teacher doesn't have anything to do then she asks any others to if the need a student to do something. Hagrid probably felt bad so said that he would give one to Harry to let him off a bit. We have never seen one of Mcgonagall's detentions, only ones other teachers have given. > > It was a different story with Ginny's disappearance [now that > somebody's raised the point :-)]; you *would* think McGonagall, > as second in command, would be planning some sort of rescue/ > recovery operation after the students had left. Yes, but she didn't have a clue where she needed to look. As Binns said, no one has ever found the chamber. Mcgonagall's next duty is then to protect the remaining students. > "cindysphynx" wrote: Snip > > >Heck no! She is teaching him how to turn beetles into buttons, > >needles into matches, porcupines into pin-cushions. And what > >exactly is Harry to do with these oh-so formidable > >Transfiguration skills? "Hang on, Lord Voldemort! Once I > >change this match into a needle, I am going to *prick* you to > >death!" > > Not sure if this was a tongue-in-cheek post, but if not ... these > *are* only first-year students, and in magic, presumably as in > anything else, you have to develop your skills, starting with the > baby stuff. You wouldn't turn a first-year physics student loose in > a nuclear power plant or let a first-year med student do open- > heart surgery.... > I'm going to agree here. You are phyiscally changing something into something else and it could nasty is done wrong. You can't do big stuff until you've mastered the basics. > "ssk7882" > <* very large snip with evidence about Ever-So-Evil McGonagall* > > > > >First off, McGonagall's very appearance on Privet Drive that > >morning is *highly* suspicious. Just what precisely is she > >doing there, anyway? She implies that she has been waiting > >there for Dumbledore -- and yet she keeps herself hidden from > >him, only revealing herself once he makes it clear that he > >knows perfectly well that she is there. > > <* further snip*> > > >And what does she do then? Does she resume her human > >form so that she can speak with this man she has supposedly > >been waiting for all day long? Does she greet him, as one > >might expect? > > >No. She does not. She lurks in the shadows, watching him > >carefully. She does not reveal herself to him until he leaves her > >no other choice: > > This is just a little, persnickety objection ... she *isn't* skulking > in the shadows. She is sitting on the Dursleys' garden wall, as > she has been doing for several hours now (she was there when > Vernon Dursley arrived home from work; PS/SS, paperack, p. > 10): > Also (on p. 12) Dumbeldore spots the cat long before he actually > walks up to it and addresses it ("... he looked up suddenly at the > cat, which was still staring at him from the other end of the > street.") I think Mcgonagall's just annoyed. Dumbledore must have gone somewhere and not told her a thing so she has been waiting all day on a brick wall. She also fels a little jealous that he won't tell her anything straight out that she has to hear it all second hand. As for the cat, I think she was wondering how he spotted her among so many other cats, it was dark, he shouldn't have been able to the glasses marking. > <* large snip*> > > >There are also strange off-notes in McGonagall's > >characterization in this scene. Nowhere else in canon does > >McGonagall fawn. She is not the sycophantic type. But she > >certainly does fawn all over Albus Dumbledore in this scene. > >It's actually quite disgusting: > > >"'Everyone knows you're the only one You-Know -- oh, all right, > >*Voldemort* -- was frightened of.'" > > >'You flatter me,' said Dumbledore calmly. 'Voldemort had > >powers I will never have.' > > >'Only because you're too -- well -- *noble* to use them.'" Er, no I disagree, she doesn't say this in a lovey dovey way. She is still very annoyed at this point and is using it as "you know you've got it, so use it" attitude. Come off it guys, if you had been sitting on a wall all day, waiting for someone to finally show up, you'd be a bit cross. > Yeah!!! Someone wrote quite some time ago that she's an > underwritten and boring character ... I don't know about boring, I quite like her but yes, she is shunned into the sidelines by Dumbledore and we can't see much of her character. But I don't belived that she is evil at all and that she does care about the students. She may bend the rules here and there but they are only minor ones. She is strict and fair and these type of characters aren't, on the surface, intresting to most people. Dogberry From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Jun 9 10:18:39 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 10:18:39 -0000 Subject: Ever So Evil McGonagall - NOT!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39621 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > Faith--oops, I mean Naama--wrote: Ouch! > > >I've just had a stroke of genius: > > > >McGonagall *cannot* be an undercover DE, cannot be Ever So Evil - > >because McGonagall appeared on the Foe Glass as Crouch!Moody's foe!!! > > > >So there! > > Naama, Naama, Naama. You really think a stroke of genius, or for that matter a stroke of common sense, is going to deter these ESE- plotters? They aren't naive. As soon ask them to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, or that those little numbers on the backs of highway signs aren't instructions for the invaders in black helicopters. > > We know those DEs. Just because they're all on Voldemort's side doesn't mean they're all on *one another's* side. Maybe McGonagall was poised to stab Right-Hand Man Crouch Jr. in the back so that *she* could be Voldemort's number one, hence appeared in his Foe- Glass as an enemy as implacable as Dumbledore. > I actually thought of that, but was too excited with my sudden insight to not post it immediately. > Or maybe Crouch never did recalibrate the Foe-Glass, it's still rigged to show *Moody's* enemies, and Snape, Dumbledore and McGonagall are *all* Ever So Evil. > Ooooh, I love that! Although I'm starting to doubt your Faithfulness, Amy. There's probably an OFH badge flying in your direction this very minute. :-) But - no, it can't work. D, S and M are closing in on Crouch!Moody, not on Real!Moody, who is safe in the trunk. Naama who should probably admit defeat too, but is enjoying the fight way too much to do that From catlady at wicca.net Sun Jun 9 10:36:44 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 10:36:44 -0000 Subject: bathrooms - WOLVES - VOLDEMORT - MQACGONAGALL Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39622 Marcus wrote: > Why is the entrance to a 1000+ year-old chamber hidden behind a > modern bathroom fixture? I suspect that the wizard folk have had 'modern' indoor plumbing and flush toilets since before Atlantis sank, and Minoan, Roman, and modern plumbing are all attempts by Muggles to achieve the comfort and convenience that they observed in some wizarding home where they had been guests. Grey Wolf wrote: > his mind preocupied in such un-wolf-like thoughts i.e. exams! I hope you aced them all! LUPIN******************************* Aldrea wrote: > But, from what canon says, I don't believe Lupin and the moon have > a "Cinderella" sort of relationship, but a "Swan Princess" one does > seem only slightly more I gather that 'a Cinderella" sort of relationship' means Lupin transforming at the stroke of midnight, but what is a "Swan Princess" one? > -the week preceding the full moon- Does this mean that he has to > take the potion for a full week before the full moon, and then on > the night of the full moon he's perfectly harmless? (snip) Well, it > certainly means that he does have to take the potion more than once > a month. When Harry saw Snape bring the goblet to Lupin: "I made an entire cauldronful," Snape continued. "If you need more." "I should probably take some again tomorrow. Thanks very much, Severus." In the Shrieking Shack: "As long as I take it in the week, preceding the full moon, I keep my mind when I transform". To me, it is not at all clear from the text how much Wolfsbane Potion he has to take how often each month. "in the week preceeding the full moon" could mean anything from one dose any time during any day of that week (in which case he should not have left it until the evening of the last day of that week in the climactic chapter) to a dose every hour of the day and night of each day of that week. I think, if he had to take doses on a rigid schedule, Snape would know about the schedule and it wouldn't have made sense for him to say "In case you need more". However, if one dose were enough, why would Lupin say "I probably should take some again tomorrow"? Pippin wrote: > How Lupin would know that, if he was out of his mind that night, > we aren't told. Just because he is consumed with an uncontrollable compulsion during the night doesn't mean that he can't remember afterwards what he did during the night, even what he did during the compulsion. Amelia Goldfeesh wrote: > "Janus". The two-faced god. Two-faced as in *deceiving*. When last I was in FictionAlleyPark (two weeks ago? When I have time to go on-line, I come here first, leaving me no time to go there), I wandered into a thread quite seriously speculating on Remus's middle name. I was not the only Lupin-lover who thought that Janus would suit him well, except that 'Remus Janus Lupin' doesn't sound at all good (I therefore suggested Januarius): he is LITERALLY two-faced: man face and wolf face, and he feels himself to be figuratively two-faced, for having concealed all that Animagery from Dumbledore. Carrie-Ann wrote: > Does this mean that there is a cure for Lupin? In post #33815, I wrote: There was a discussion of why that Homorphus Charm was not a cure for Lupin. I suggested that its side-effects include damaging the recipient's brain to the point where he does not remember and can never again learn how to speak, nor even toilet- training. Someone else suggested that it only worked within a year or two after the werewolf was first infected, and it had been discovered too late for Lupin. I was finally persauded by another suggestion: that it only turns the werewolf human for one minute. That is long enough to identify him, especially in a village where everyone knows everyone. Once he has been identified, his neighbors can tie him up before nightfall of each Full Moon, or more likely they will kill him in daylight of New Moon when he has no special powers to defend himself with. VOLDEMORT************ Bookloving Kat wrote: > Apologies for being pedantic, but canon seems to suggest that > Voldemort wasn't always in Albania: "What interests *me* the most," > said Dumbledore gently, "is how Lord Voldemort managed to enchant > Ginny when my sources tell me he is currently in hiding in the > forests of Albania." I think "currently" in Albania is accurate even if he had been there for a hundred years and was going to stay a hundred more, despite the connotation of temporariness. For a 150 year old, having been there for 13 years might seem temporary. Anyway, Voldemort left his hiding place and came to Hogwarts with Quirrel in Book 1, and then fled to a hiding place, whether the same or different, so even if he hid in Albania both before and after Book 1, he wasn't there for 13 years continuously. Pippin wrote: > Lupin could hardly tend to baby Voldie's needs in wolf form, I believe that Voldemort was hiding in Albania (or wherever: see above) in the form of a mist, with no body at all. I believe he didn't get the hideous-baby body until he had Wormtail and Bertha to assist him. I am inclined to believe (I didn't think up this idea myself) that poor Bertha was not only torture-victim and information- source, but also surrogate-mother for Voldemort's hideous-baby form. It just occured to me this minute that Wormtail and Voldemort didn't have a whole lot of time between when Wormtail fled the Shrieking Shack in June... how long does it take a rat to travel from Scotland to Albania? ... and capturing Bertha and everything they did with her was completed by the time they were in the Riddle House in ... mid-July? MACGONAGALL************ Elkins wrote: > tail-twitching and eye-narrowing is absolutely *not* how cats > express pleasure at seeing someone they have been waiting all > day to have a nice chat with. JKR has said that she dislikes cats (someone has already exactly quoted that chat Q&A), so she probably glares hostilely at cats, who respond by not showing her how they behave with their *friends*. Porphyria wrote: > If I were a cat hater (snip) and working entirely for herself. > Herself and Tom. Tom Cat! I have often complained that in the Potterverse, we have Tom and Harry, but where is Dick, but I had not connected Tom to cats. Eloise wrote: > Now I don't think that McGonagall can have been (or at least, > she'd have been at the top of the school when Riddle started) October 16, 2000 is the date (according to The Goat Pen -- and I *will* check your links, Mike, when I get a chance) of the Scholastic on-line chat in which she said that MacGonagall is 'a sprightly 70'. I brood about whether she meant 'is' in 2000, when the interview was given, in GoF (1994-5 school year), or in Book 1 (1991-2 school year). To me, if MacGonagall was 70 in GoF, she would have been around two years ahead of TMR, not six years ahead. And if she was 70 in 2000, she would have been at the bottom of the school when TMR was at the top. I would like to finagle my numbers so that she was in the SAME year... From cindysphynx at comcast.net Sun Jun 9 11:41:38 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 11:41:38 -0000 Subject: Talentless DEs (WAS Harry and the riddle of Riddle/Apparate or Die Trying) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39623 Grey Wolf wrote: > Lately I've noticed that we have been picking on several of the >DEs over their lack of power - Wormtail especially - but there is >something that we must take in mind. Even if some of the DEs may >look useless, we know that they can all apparate and most of them >(if not all) can cast the unforgivable curses, which take a good >deal of energy and skill, if we can trust Crouch!Moody (which I believe we can). > And now, for a possible explanation which I'm not sure I believe: >could Voldemort have GIVEN them powers, like on loan, in exchange >for their helps? That would explain why people with the >constitutions of stones (Crabbe and Goyle) and nearly as >intelligent, can cast those difficult spells. I have rather mixed feelings about the power of the DEs. On the one hand, DEs include characters like Crabbe Sr. and Goyle, Sr., who are supposed to be dim like their sons. The DEs can't hit Harry in the graveyard. And they let themselves in for all manner of abuse at the hands of their sadistic master. But then again, as Grey Wolf points out, they seem to be able to perform these unforgivable curses, and they seem to be able to apparate on command. The idea that DEs get a power loan from Voldemort makes some sense, it really does. But if that were true, Peter really wouldn't need to frame Sirius and then spend 12 years as a rat. Peter could use his enhanced powers to blast Sirius in the street. When the authorities arrive, Peter could just say that he was merely defending himself against the completely and utterly mad Sirius Black. No, I think Sirius would have won that duel, and Peter knew it. I'm also not sure about this consensus that apparating is evidence of great skill. We know that you need a license to apparate, which you apparently can't get if you're underage. Mr. Weasley says, "It's not easy, Apparition, and when it's not done properly it can lead to nasty complications." Like splinching. But then again, is there a single adult character in the entire wizarding world who we know for a fact cannot apparate? Every adult character discussed in connection with apparating knows how to do it. Mr. and Mrs. Weasley, Bill, Charlie, Percy, Bagman, Crouch, and every DE. It sounds to me like apparating is akin to driving. You can't do it until you're an adult (or close, anyway), there's a lot to doing it correctly and safely, the consequences of mistakes are dire, the government wants to discourage mistakes so that they don't have to spend time scraping people off the pavement and so that bystanders don't get hurt, and you need a license. Now, how difficult to perform are the unforgivable curses? Well, AK requires a "powerful bit of magic behind it." But Moody implies that it can be taught: "I'm not here to teach you how to do it." As for Cruciatus and Imperius, we really don't know. But I'd imagine that one reason the unforgivable curses land a wizard in Azkaban for life is because all wizards can do them or learn them -- so there is a stiff punishment to deter their use. Cindy From jake_o_is_cool at yahoo.co.uk Sun Jun 9 11:34:23 2002 From: jake_o_is_cool at yahoo.co.uk (jake_o_is_cool) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 11:34:23 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Minerva McGonagall Is Ever So Evil! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39624 Another reason to suspect Professor McGonagall is evil, is to do with Mrs Figg. Mrs Figg broke her leg after tripping over a cat. Was this cat the evil Professor McGonagall, trying to put Mrs Figg out of action, and sabotage Harry Potter's protection? "Jake" From editor at texas.net Sun Jun 9 15:32:09 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 10:32:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: Minerva McGonagall is Ever So Evil References: Message-ID: <00ae01c20fca$d2369c80$a07763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39625 Bluesqueak asked > Why did Dumbledore sent *Snape* out to look for Harry and Ron? Why > not McGonagall, their head of House? Surely someone else could have > taken care of the Sorting for her when two of her own students were > missing? Where did you get the idea that Dumbledore *sent* Snape? I always thought that Snape noticed they were missing and then went to find them. Why should Snape pass up the wonderful opportunity to snag Harry in serious trouble? But it probably was that he was sent. Let's think about it. McGonagall runs the Sorting Hat ceremony. She'd have to deal with that. It would not be Dumbledore who noticed them missing, it would be Hagrid. I seriously doubt Hagrid would report this to Snape, but he might. He'd tell someone. If it were Dumbledore, he may well have let his second-in-command continue with her regular Sorting Ceremony duties, and send the next lieutenant in line, Snape, to look into the missing students. Seems eminently reasonable to me. If it were not Dumbledore, I'd bet it was Snape's own initiative--he does seem to be looking out for Harry, happily or not, and McGonagall might not have noticed, all preoccupied with the Sorting Ceremony. Or maybe a busy McGonagall asked Snape to do it. But I don't think any of this makes McGongagall evil. --Amanda From rowen_lm at yahoo.com Sun Jun 9 16:46:34 2002 From: rowen_lm at yahoo.com (rowen_lm) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 16:46:34 -0000 Subject: werewolf cures, WOLVES In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39626 Carrie-Ann wrote: > All this talk about Lupin has me wondering... Lockhart says that he > did a spell on a werewolf that turned him back into a man, and he no > longer transformed. I know that Lockhart himself didn't do it, but > he says that all othe things he claims to have done were actually > accomplished, just by other people. Does this mean that there is a > cure for Lupin? It may just have been an oversight, or I could not > be reading it correctly, but if it has been done before, why can't it > be done for Lupin? Any thoughts? Yeah, my sis and I noticed this too. I would say either a) a FLINT, like everyone is saying or B) Lockhart is just making stuff up with out checking his facts. Aldrea wrote: > But, from what canon says, I don't believe Lupin and the moon have > a "Cinderella" sort of relationship, but a "Swan Princess" one does > seem only slightly more Cat_lady wrote: I gather that 'a Cinderella" sort of relationship' means Lupin transforming at the stroke of midnight, but what is a "Swan Princess" one? Swan Princess refers to the book/movie where the princess changes into another form at night, in this case a swan. THen they change back in the morning. This sounds more close to what werewolves actually do. From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Sun Jun 9 17:00:04 2002 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 17:00:04 -0000 Subject: Baby Voldemort Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39627 I just read catlady's posts, particularly the one about the "hideous baby" Voldemort. I had never thought about Bertha Jorkins being surrogate mother - that's interesting. My own thoughts were that Nagini had provided some sort of egg, something that Voldemort was able to inhabit. This isn't making sense, is it? *sigh* ;-) What I mean is, is that I understood the book to imply that Nagini had provided a "snake baby" (for lack of a better term). In GoF, ch. 32, it describes Voldemort: "It was hairless and scaly-looking, a dark, raw, reddish black. Its arms and legs were thin and feeble and it's face - no child alive ever had a face like that- flat and snakelike, with gleaming red eyes." Does this make sense to anyone? or am I waaayyy off base. Just a thought! :-) alora67 From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sun Jun 9 18:28:18 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 11:28:18 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: Minerva McGonagall is Ever So Evil In-Reply-To: <00ae01c20fca$d2369c80$a07763d1@texas.net> References: <00ae01c20fca$d2369c80$a07763d1@texas.net> Message-ID: <355448097.20020609112818@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39628 Sunday, June 9, 2002, 8:32:09 AM, Amanda Geist wrote: AG> But I don't think any of this makes McGongagall evil. Agreed... I see McGonnegal as the person in the Potterverse most like Mary Poppins (the books, not Julie Andrews): A stern facade hiding a heart of gold. I think there's plentiful evidence that in spite of her arsenol of strict words and detentions that she loves Harry dearly, such as: "Come along, Potter," she whispered. The thin line of her mouth was twitching as though she was about to cry. "Come along . . . hospital wing ..." "No," said Dumbledore sharply. "Dumbledore, he ought to -- look at him -- he's been through enough tonight--" (GoF, chapter 35) -- Dave From cureluv88 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 10 00:40:30 2002 From: cureluv88 at hotmail.com (lizbot1981) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 00:40:30 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Cubs, WAS Re: Werewolf cures??? (Very Short) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39629 Hi, I haven't seen this mentioned on here before, but if I'm wrong and it's already been discussed a bit, I apologize. I was just re-reading CoS and during Harry's confrontation with Tom Riddle, Tom says, regarding Hagrid "...in trouble every other week, trying to raise werewolf cubs under his bed.." This goes against what I understand about werewolves. Lupin talks about getting bitten - he was never a werewolf cub who would grow up to be a real werewolf. It seems to me like either Tom Riddle saying this was either a) A FLINT, as you call them, b) just him speaking derisively about Hagrid, without regard for real facts, or c) a sign that we don't really know the story with how werewolves work. What does everyone else think? Thanks, Liz From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 10 02:21:13 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 02:21:13 -0000 Subject: Werewolf Cubs, WAS Re: Werewolf cures??? (Very Short) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39630 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lizbot1981" wrote: I was just re-reading CoS and during Harry's confrontation with Tom Riddle, Tom says, regarding Hagrid "...in trouble every other week, trying to raise werewolf cubs under his bed.." <<< JKR answered this in a Barnes and Noble chat Oct. 20, 2000. Someone asked if those were the same kind of werewolves as Lupin and she said: No. Riddle was telling lies about Hagrid, just slandering him. http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/October_2000_Live_C hat_Barnes_Noble.htm Pippin From katzefan at yahoo.com Mon Jun 10 06:50:24 2002 From: katzefan at yahoo.com (katzefan) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 06:50:24 -0000 Subject: Support Your Local Werewolf (somewhat lengthy) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39631 Aldrea (another Lupin supporter) wrote: >>Pippin: As soon as the moon comes out, Lupin will transform >>and kill them, all except Harry. Yes, even under the influence of >>the potion, because, alas! Lupin's human mind is just as >>twisted and evil as his werewolf one. "It is our choices, not our >>abilities..." >Well, that's certainly overly believing in one's abilities. Lupin >thinks he can take on two full fledged wizards plus three in >training (Harry certainly isn't going to stand by and watch his >friends die)? >Hmm...and all in werewolf form, you say? Well, that's certainly >something. But if he can turn into a werewolf at will, why can't he use the same willpower to *refrain* from transforming? (Then again, of course, if he's Evil, he wouldn't want to.) ******** "booklovinggirl" wrote: <*large snip*> > ... What if Remus is a double-agent? Working for Dumbledore >as a spy, or even passing falsities and real spy reports to *both >sides*. If he's passing true and false info to *both* sides, what exactly is he playing at?!? Is there another, still-unknown Evil Overlord out there somewhere? Why would he risk being disposed of With Extreme Prejudice by very angry people on both sides of the fight? >I doubt that Snape would be the *only* one spying >for Voldemort-that isn't exactly an airtight plan. What if there are >other, undiscovered, spies in Voldemort's inner circle? It >doesn't seem that far-fetched, if you think about it.... You mean spying *on* Voldemort, don't you? :-) <*snip*> >> He does have one rather frightening hobby: he makes pets >>out of Dark Creatures and then kills them. We know what >>happened to the Boggart in the wardrobe. But what happened >>to the Grindylow, eh? Why put in the detail of the empty case? >Hmmm. This is interesting. Perhaps a bit of torment about >being a Dark Creature, a werewolf? Or maybe he sends him to >Hagrid. Or maybe Pippin's right and he's a sadist. True, he didn't seem to be carrying the Grindylow case on the train when he came to Hogwarts, or at least it wasn't mentioned (Hermione pointed out his suitcase with his initials on it, but there wasn't any mention of anything else) ? so why was he taking it with him when he left? But hang on here: I don't have the book in front of me, but I don't recall any indication he was making *pets* out of Dark Creatures. He captures them for his classes, and then ... well, admittedly, we're never told 'and then what.' I always thought he just let them go again. (One possibility: he did say he had just 'taken delivery' of a Grindylow -- p. 116, PoA, paperback -- which was presumably delivered in a tank or case, so it could be he just kept the case once he let it go.) And wasn't it the *class* who blew up the Boggart, by yelling Riddikulus at it repeatedly? Admittedly at Lupin's instigation, but as the DADA teacher, isn't that what he's supposed to be teaching them? Further on Lupin's suitcase: someone asked why the letters were peeling. Well, he has trouble getting employment, and we're also told his robes are shabby and patched ... could it just be that the suitcase is old and he's never had the money to replace it? <*snip*> >> Sirius Black never planned to murder Snape. Lupin did. And >> Lupin hates Harry, just the way he's hated James, ever since >> James thwarted his beautiful plan. >> Of all the Marauders, Lupin has the best reason to want >>Snape dead, since he has the most to lose if his secret is >>revealed. He doesn't think he'll be blamed...the werewolf did it, >>not him. >Ah, but if Remus didn't want Snape to know, why did he set up >the Prank in the first place? He might have just wanted to finish >Snape off but had a plan that backfired, but you say that Remus >wants to finish off Snape because he's scared Snape will >reveal the secret, right? But how can he be scared of this if >Snape *doesn't know* the secret? I confess to being a bit lost here; what secret doesn't Snape know? He's known that Lupin was a werewolf ever since the Nearly Fatal Prank ("Snape glimpsed me, though, at the end of the tunnel. He was forbidden to tell anybody by Dumbledore, but from that time on, he knew what I was ..." PoA, paperback, p. 261). And I don't think it's ever specifically stated who set up the NFP. All we're told, when Lupin is talking to the three kids during the scene in the Shrieking Shack, is that Sirius sent Snape off and told him how to get past the Whomping Willow. As for claiming 'It wasn't me; it was the werewolf,' he's got to be pretty dim to depend on that as a defence, given the attitude of the wizarding world towards werewolves. Even as a Dark Agent, I suspect it would be the last thing he ever did (unless he's *intended* to be a sacrifical pawn). <*snip*> >> But the plan fails. Tt!Harry conjures Prongs (how horrifying for >> Evil!Lupin), then Snape comes around and takes Sirius up to >>the castle. Lupin has no choice but to spend the night in the >>forest. But, as he tells Hagrid, he didn't bite anyone. How >>Lupin would know that, if he was out of his mind that night, we >>aren't told. >You got me on this one. However, Hagrid doesn't think it's odd >that Remus would know, and even though others might >disagree with me, I think that Hagrid's judgement can be trusted on this. > >-Katherine But just how far out of his mind *was* he? Could it be that, as a werewolf, a person retains at least *some* awareness of what they're doing but are powerless to stop themselves ? Think of The Exorcist: at some level, the little girl knew she was doing awful things (remember the scene where 'Help Me' appears on her skin?) but can't do anything to prevent it. Re: Lupin's Mysterious Background, I wonder if he might not have spent at least some of it roaming the Forbidden Forest. There are werewolves in there, right? Maybe there's a colony.... Like McGonagall, Lupin's actions could be read either way: Terrific Guy with Major Problem or Quick Somebody Start Melting Down Grandpa's Silver Beer Stein. And all the other Lupin supporters have come up with really good counter-arguments, so I have little to add ... ...except that, at the end of GoF, Dumbledore tells Sirius to "alert Remus Lupin, Arabella Figg, Mundungus Fletcher -- the old crowd. Lie low at Lupin's for a while, I will contact you there." Dumbledore is not perfect, but there have been indications throughout all the books that he knows far more about what's going on than one might expect. So his "alert Remus Lupin" could be a blind, if he knows that Lupin's loyalty is seriously in question; to do otherwise might be to alert Lupin to the fact that his cover's been blown. But Dumbledore also seems to be advising Sirius to just move right in with Lupin -- surely he's not dotty enough to basically hand the hero over to the enemy -- particularly not a hero who's still somewhat shaky from 12 years in Azkaban! Having to be on his guard 24 hours a day isn't likely to do Sirius a lot of good. He's got to sleep sometime, and putting up all kinds of warding- off charms and whatnot around his bed is likely to be a bit obvious, no? If Lupin's loyalty is that doubtful, why not have Sirius bunk down at Arabella Figgs', Mundungus Fletcher's, or the home of some other member of the 'old crowd'? Surely they could come up with some plausable excuse to explain to Lupin why Sirius was not at his place, assuming that such an excuse was even needed ? the two haven't seen each other in over a decade, after all. Katzefan, who was pleased to see Lupin described in Entertainment Weekly as 'one of the most beloved characters in the Potterverse.' From Edblanning at aol.com Mon Jun 10 09:42:59 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 05:42:59 EDT Subject: Riddle and McGonagall (was: re: bathrooms - WOLVES - VOLDEMORT - MQACGONAGALL Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39632 Catlady de los Angeles: > Eloise wrote: > > > Now I don't think that McGonagall can have been (or at least, > > she'd have been at the top of the school when Riddle started) > > October 16, 2000 is the date (according to The Goat Pen -- and I > *will* check your links, Mike, when I get a chance) of the Scholastic > on-line chat in which she said that MacGonagall is 'a sprightly 70'. > I brood about whether she meant 'is' in 2000, when the interview was > given, in GoF (1994-5 school year), or in Book 1 (1991-2 school year). > > To me, if MacGonagall was 70 in GoF, she would have been around two > years ahead of TMR, not six years ahead. And if she was 70 in 2000, > she would have been at the bottom of the school when TMR was at the > top. I would like to finagle my numbers so that she was in the SAME > year... > I was taking my information from the Lexicon, according to which McGonagall was born in 1920 and Tom Riddle in 1927. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at aol.com Mon Jun 10 10:35:48 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 06:35:48 EDT Subject: Polyjuice: A Dark Art? Plus Killing Unicorns and Boggarts Message-ID: <33.283e9179.2a35db04@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39633 Is Polyjuice Potion a Dark Art? I uncovered the following in ch. 12 of PS/SS (p. 198 U.S.) "Harry wandered over to the Restricted Section. . . .These were the books containing powerful Dark Magic never taught at Hogwarts, and only read by older students studying advanced Defense Against the Dark Arts." The phrase "these were the books" suggests to me that all the books in the Restricted Section were Dark Arts books, not just that all of the Dark Arts books were there. The discussion in CoS could be interpreted as suggesting Moste Potente Potions was a Dark Arts book, but it's far from clear. Ch. 10 (p. 164 U.S.) says "It was clear at a glance why [the book] belonged in the Restricted Section. Some of the potions had effects almost too gruesome to think about." The Lexicon does not include Polyjuice in the Dark Arts section, but if you think about it, the only purpose of the potion is to deceive, which definitely seems Dark Arts-like. And the only other person who has been seen to use it is Crouch Jr., which adds to the potion's Dark Arts aura. But wouldn't it be just like Snape to be dropping mentions of Dark Arts potions in his classes? Come to think of it, some of those potions Snape mentions in his first class sound like they belong in the Restricted Section too, like that Draught of Living Death. If Polyjuice is under the Dark Arts umbrella, it ratchets up a notch what Hermione is willing to do if she feels threatened. Also, a couple more LOONs from old posts. Zoe said: > I have no canon to back me, but I would be VERY surprised if Ollivander were > out there killing unicorns to obtain a unicorn hair. Talk about a wand for a > evil wizard ... containing the hair of a unicorn that was killed for a > strand of unicorn hair. > > More likely, I would propose, is that Ollivander visits magical forests > during the time of year when unicorns shed a bit and picks up these stray > In "The Weighing of the Wands" Ollivander specifically states that the unicorn that provided Cedric's wand's core "nearly gored me with his horn after I plucked his tail." So there is no killing of the unicorns. On the other hand, I can't see how to obtain a dragon's heartstring without killing it. Pippin, on Evil! Lupin: He does have one rather frightening hobby: he makes pets out of Dark Creatures and then kills them. We know what happened to the Boggart in the wardrobe. And Katzefan said: > And wasn't it the *class* who blew up the Boggart, by yelling > Riddikulus at it repeatedly? Admittedly at Lupin's instigation, but > as the DADA teacher, isn't that what he's supposed to be > teaching them? > I checked this one because dead boggarts just didn't seem right to me. Lupin says in his first class that the boggart doesn't have a form until it meets its victim. He also says that the Riddikulus charm "repels" the Boggart. It doesn't say the Boggart is killed (though he says laughter "finishes off" the boggart). So that spectacular explosion Neville causes was only the dissolution of the boggart's form. It's banished and formless, but not dead, IMO. Later, in ch. 12, when Lupin is teaching Harry the Patronus, he uses Riddikulus to dissolve the boggart-dementor, but then it reappears as the moon as Lupin forces it into his packing case. Debbie, who doesn't even want to contemplate Evil! Lupin <@ /___' [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Mon Jun 10 11:01:00 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 07:01:00 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's death needs a little bang in it ? Message-ID: <57.ca93342.2a35e0ec@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39634 Aldrea: > Cindy: > > When Dumbledore goes out, he has to go down *swinging* and everyone > > has to be right there watching but unable to help. Ideally, he'll > > save a few people on his way out, preferably Harry. Any cliche at > > all for Dumbledore's death is fine by me. He can be diffusing a > > bomb and can accidently cut the *red* wire, if you like. Just so > > long as Dumbledore makes an enormous *Bang* when he dies, I'll be > > satisfied. > > I have a hard time seeing Dumbledore going down guns ablazing and > such. I just don't grasp how it can be set up reasonably. > Dumbledore is very very wise, he also has a healthy distrust of > Voldemort, plus spies and a way of knowing what people are doing. I > just don't see him getting killed in such a dramatic way unless > something induces him to show up on Voldemort's front doorstep > nancing about with a bullseye on his forehead. I think it can be set up OK. We must remember that Dumbledore is more than that supremely wise, elder statesman of a wizard that we see in the books. Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald. He has no hestitation in being the first through the door to confront Crouch/Moody. He is scarred (albeit in the most useful way, should he ever need to use the underground) and has a crooked nose, both of which I take to be indicators of a more active past (although they could be innocent Quidditch injuries). Dumbledore, in fact, has Edge. (I know you weren't denying any of that, but I just wanted to emphasise the fact that we know Dumbledore to have been a man of action, not just a wise leader.) I have no problem with the idea that Dumbledore, once he feels that he has passed on his mantle, or at least the potential to wear his mantle, to Harry and that he can do no more for him in terms of passing on his wisdom, just might act in what appears to be reckless way; might either deliberately sacrifice himself (whether wearing a target on his forehead or not ;-) ), or put himself wittingly into a situation which he knows he may not survive. As Cindy pointed out, the constant harping on Dumbledore's aging would only serve to make his non-survival of such an encounter more believable. Bang *with* pathos and irony as we (and he) know he can't survive, yet he forges ahead nonetheless. He is not afraid of the next great adventure and I suspect that his promise never truly to leave Hogwarts until no-one loyal to him remains is one that that he intends to go beyond his death. These facts, combined with the fact that he is such a great and powerful wizard and the only one whom Voldemort fears encourage me to think that he will be in the forefront of the battle, putting himself at considerable risk. That's if Hagrid doesn't do it first (and you know that my pet theory is that Hagrid will unintentionally be the cause of his demise) - which would be another ironic Bang. Eloise Who finds herself draped in a FEATHERBOA more and more frequently these days. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at aol.com Mon Jun 10 11:43:34 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 07:43:34 EDT Subject: Dumbledore's Death (TBAY) (WAS Dumbledore's dispensib... Message-ID: <3a.27fff852.2a35eae6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39635 Debbie catches Cindy on her way out of the Dead Flamingo Bar and grabs her by the FEATHERBOA. "So you want Dumbledore's death to Bang? You don't think natural causes can be Bangy?" > I can't see death by natural causes. I just can't. No, even the AK > curse isn't good enough for Albus. Albus is going to have to > *suffer* a very inventive death right there where the Bangers can > see it and enjoy it. > > When Dumbledore goes out, he has to go down *swinging* and everyone > has to be right there watching but unable to help. Ideally, he'll > save a few people on his way out, preferably Harry. Any cliche at > all for Dumbledore's death is fine by me. He can be diffusing a > bomb and can accidently cut the *red* wire, if you like. Just so > long as Dumbledore makes an enormous *Bang* when he dies, I'll be > satisfied. > "You don't think Dumbledore's deathbed can't be Bangy? That would depend on what really makes for a good Bang, wouldn't it?" "Kill the spare" was Bangy because (a) nobody had died onstage before and (b) he didn't kill Harry first. But that wasn't the Bangiest part of GoF, IMO. No, I think the biggest bang was when "Moody" says he put Harry's name in the Goblet. Because, Bang! The great Auror suddenly became Evil! The Shack was Bangy because of all the rapid changes in who the characters were. First Sirius was Evil! Then Sirius and Lupin were Evil! together. Then Bang! Scabbers became Peter. Then Bang! Peter became Evil! and Lupin and Sirius were redeemed. In fact, I think the Biggest Bang of PoA, was the a bit of quiet conversation at the end of ch. 18: "'That's not a rat,' croaked Sirius Black suddenly. 'What d'you mean -- of course he's a rat --' 'No, he's not,' said Lupin quietly. 'He's a wizard.' 'An Animagus,' said Black, 'by the name of Peter Pettigrew.'" Noisy? No. But dramatic? Bangy? Absolutely. The best Bangs, you see, are the ones that reinvent the story. So now that we've seen a DE kill an innocent bystander on Voldemort's orders, what would be Bangy about Dumbledore being knocked off the catwalk by some DE? We already know that's what DEs do. That's just a big fizzle. There's no Bang in that unless, say, McGonagall was doing the pushing. Dumbledore's death cannot help but be Bangy, as long as he gets his last words in. C'mon, Dumbledore's got just a few secrets up his sleeve. Look how slowly he's been parceling out information to Harry about his past. There's a lot more coming, and I doubt it's *all* sparkling and light. There's an ugly revelation down the pike somewhere, and if Dumbledore dies after the revelation but before the explanation, it could leave a huge Bang inside Harry's head. Not because Dumbledore's dead, but because Dumbledore's last words told Harry something that completely upends a fundamental assumption of ours. And it doesn't have to be in bed. He could have a spectacular collapse in the Great Hall. In fact, I suggest that, short of dying peacefully but unexpectedly in his sleep with all his secrets intact, the least Bangy death he could suffer would be the one where he just falls off the rickety catwalk into the fiery lava below. Because if he does that, he won't have an opportunity to reveal -- or half-reveal -- any of those secrets he's carrying around. Because those are the best Bangs. Right? And anyway, what if his death only *appears* to be natural causes? What about Snape's stopper of death? What about his Draught of Living Death (PS/SS ch. 8)? Maybe Dumbledore will fake his own death, or someone will poison him. That would be quite Bangy, and different, too. In that case Dumbledore's apparent weakness in GoF could be an important bit of misdirection. So never fear, Cindy, if Dumbledore appears to die of natural causes. In fact, the first thing I'd do is go to Snape's storeroom and check his supplies of asphodel and wormwood. "George, are you going to stay there awhile? How about if I pop by later for a drink or two? We need to talk about Snape." ****************************** Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pollux46 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 10 11:44:21 2002 From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:44:21 -0000 Subject: Sirius Black Is Ever So Evil (WAS:Re: TBAY: Another Flying Hedgehog) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39636 Having at last accepted that PTSD!Neville is actually a no?starter (though doing her best to avoid admitting it) Charis Julia silently heaves herself out of the MACHINGARMCHAIR paddleboot and tiptoes away over the sand while the rest of the crew's backs are turned. Maybe she can come back some other time when that whole embarrassing story is well and truly forgotten and pretend that she's a new recruit or something. As she wanders rather aimlessly down the beach a sound of girlish laughter reaches her ears. Who's that? Her curiosity peaking Charis rounds the corner and come across two women gleefully hurdling a rather underfed hedgehog with a pronounced deadened look in its eyes (or is that merely the result of being flung around so violently?) at each other. Before she can even begin wondering how on earth Dicentra started playing with * that* hedgehog, Charis notices another bystander. Eloise is shaking her head sorrowfully. Charis walks over. "Hey, Eloise, what's up? Oh, I say Eloise, exactly what are those two playing at?" Eloise frowns. "Well, not sure actually. It seemed to start off as volleyball, but now I think Cindy's attempting to switch to cricket." Charis witnesses Cindy spin?bowl the Black hedgehog towards a most remarkable wicket, whose stumps have apparently been rearranged to spell out the words MRS LESTRANGE. Charis snorts. "Huh. Well, that theory's * out*. Bowled c.b.w. (canon before wicket). Even Sirius knows that. And he only plays Quidditch." GoF, Padfoot Returns: "That was the last time I saw Barty Crouch, half carrying his wife past my cell." Fudge backs this up in PoA, Thae Marauder's Map: ". . . he was one of the most heavily guarded in the place you know. Dementor's outside his door, day and night." So there you go. There are cells at Azkaban and sounds to me like Sirius had one all to himself: "my cell", "his door". No, "our"s or "their"s mentioned. And it does make sense doesn't it? That prisoners should be kept in individual cells? Solitary confinement, best way to make sure that whatever none depressive thoughts might have escaped the Dementors won't be keeping anyone's moral up. So Mrs Lestrange would have had a hard time even communicating with Sirius, let alone turning on the charm for him or recruiting him to the Dark Side. And anyway Fudge tells us: "You know, most of the prisoners in there sit muttering to themselves in the dark, there's no sense in them. . ." Doesn't sound to me much like anyone in there is up to much cunning sucking up to ex?enemies. As for earning respect. . . Well, if Sirius had been at the Trial things might be different. . . But slumped up to a slimy wall sucking her thumb while spittle dribbles freely down her chin isn't going to get Mrs Lestrange *anyone's * admiration easily I'd say. Especially not somebody's who's in such good shape they can actually * ask for used newspapers*! Nah," Charis finishes off as the hedgehog flies through the air and lands right in her open arms, "I'm keeping Mrs Lestrange for Pettigrew, thank you very much." "Besides, Eloise is right. This is croquet. And everyone knows what's the absolute necessity in order play croquet, don't they?" Flamingos of course! Ah, yes, thank you Cindy," Charis gracefully accepts the one handed to her. "But something's wrong here, wouldn't you say? Something with the colour plan. . . This is pink when what we really need. . ." (Charis glances up at the Black hedgehog and then back at the flamingo) "is. . .is. . .green! Yes. Cabbage green." Charis whips out a can of paint and ducks the bird in humming to herself. (* We're painting flamingos green, we're painting flamingos green. . .*) "And then just one more minor alteration in the decorations. . ." Handling her flamingo as if it were a wand she points it straight at the wicket, which that promptly redesigns itself to form the name ARABELLA FIGG. Charis steps back to admire her handiwork. "Ah yes. Better. Much better." * * * Some weeks ago Cindy proposed her brilliant Pillow Talk idea. Unfortunately this obvious stroke of genius was unappreciated and eventually discharged. Now, however I move for its re?examination. According to Pillow Talk, Sirius upon his escape from (the cells of) Azkaban went straight to his old flame Arabella Figg in order to catch up on the latest in the Wizarding World. Several objections where proposed against this theory, of which unfortunately I now only remember my own: If Arabella knew that Sirius was innocent and had heard his Pettigrew story why didn't she take matters into her own hands? Why didn't she simply pay the Weasleys a friendly visit and ask to see their rat? Much simpler than letting Sirius mess everything up in his usual fashion really. I now know the answer to this question. And no, it is not, as I then naively proposed, that Arabella simply did not know. Matters are much more sinister than that: Arabella Figg Is Ever So Evil. And Sirius Black too. They Are Both Ever So Evil. And not only post? Voldemort's fall either. Since Always. Yes, exactly. Of course. Who is Arabella Figg anyway? If she's a Mrs now, what was her maiden name? Don't know? No idea whatsoever? Well, here's a hint: Albus, Aberforth, Algie (as someone recently proposed) aaaaaand. . . that's right! Arabella! Arabella Dumbledore. Ooh, even the sound of it is right! Yes. That's why Albus trusts her so explicitly. That's why he gave her the all-important job of watching over Harry. That's why he wants her alerted at once after Voldemort's rebirth. But is Dumbledore right to trust so unquestioningly in his darling little sis'? Oh, I wouldn't be so sure about that. . .Not sure at all. . . You see, well, Aberforth, well, he can't even read, can he? And Algie? He's a nutcase if I ever saw one. But Arabella? She must obviously be talented. Otherwise she could not have been one of the Crowd, could she? And so, of course, she's jealous. I mean, why does Albie get to hog all the glory anyway? Since when does he get off being the greatest wizard in the world? The one that defeats Grindewald and even Voldemort fears? Fear Albus, ha! That's a laugh! But it was always that way. . .Their parents were so proud of him. "Albus this and Albus that!" What about Arabella, huh? But now, now its * her* turn! She'll show everyone! Won't they regret the way they treated her when she's the Supreme Ruler of the Universe? `Cos that's her plan naturally. That's why she hooked up with the grandson of the Terrible Grindelwald. Dicentra's looking interested. "You mean Sirius's grandfather really * was* Grindelwald? Sirius really * is* the offspring of the unfortunate Andromeda Grindelwald Black? He really * is* after his own version of world domination? With himself in charge? Niiiice!" Charis nods her head sorrowfully. "Yes, of course. All for the sake of his darling dead mother who's life was so abruptly cut off and who's memory has been so slanderously blemished. He is the protector of the Pack after all. It's just that the pack isn't comprised quite as we had initially imagined." Dicentra nods fervently. All this is her baby after all. Eloise is merely looking politely curious. But Cindy is downright mistrustful. "Look, I'm not buying none of this Sirius Was Seriously Evil All Along hogwash. He * was* the Potters' friend, he * did* hate Pettigrew!" Charis looks at Cindy in mild surprise. "Well, of course! I don't presume to propose that opposite. He still liked the Potters well enough. They didn't mess with his plans for ruling the universe in any way. And after all Black's not with Voldemort, is he? And Voldemort's the one who killed Lily and James, right?" Or is he. . .? Charis Julia, who is not at all sure about a thing she just wrote, but always * has* though McGonagall is not good news. From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Mon Jun 10 11:55:29 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:55:29 -0000 Subject: Meaning of FLINT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39637 Grey Wolf wrote: > A quick visit to Inish Alley (our database of ever-growing number of > acronyms) reveals: > F.L.I.N.T. (Flint-Like Inconsistencies Nitpicked Triumphantly) > (reference to the Slytherin Quidditch captain, whom JKR accidentally > kept on as captain after he should actually have left school: a genuine > admitted mistake). > > FLINT is invoked at any time someone believes JKR has made an internal > inconsistency of the Potterverse: something that goes against the rules > she has set herself. Sometimes, it's interesting to note, those errors > can be explained even when JKR herself admits it wasn't thought out to > be like that: Flint, Marcus, failed his OWLS and had to repeat a year, > which is why he's still around in PoA. >From www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript1.htm "Q: In the first book you said Slytherin house Quidditch captain was sixth year Marcus Flint. If there are only seven years of Hogwarts, why is he in the third book? JKR: He had to do a year again! :-) " courtesy of the Goat search engine (www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/) Unless there is another interview I've missed, she ain't admitting nothing, so it seems we may have a Flint in the Alley. The most likely reason for doing a year again would be a NEWT failure, though OWL failure is a possibility. (As an aside, we don't yet know if leaving school after completing OWLs is an option for Hogwarts pupils, as it would be in Muggle schools.) The Inish Alley quote is from a post by Tabouli (32909) - I will try to remember to ask her about it when she Apparates here in a few days time. David From Ali at zymurgy.org Mon Jun 10 12:17:40 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 12:17:40 -0000 Subject: Meaning of FLINT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39638 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" wrote: > > FLINT is invoked at any time someone believes JKR has made an > internal > > inconsistency of the Potterverse: something that goes against the > rules > > she has set herself. Sometimes, it's interesting to note, those > errors > > can be explained even when JKR herself admits it wasn't thought out > to > > be like that: Flint, Marcus, failed his OWLS and had to repeat a > year, > > which is why he's still around in PoA. > > From www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript1.htm > > "Q: In the first book you said Slytherin house Quidditch captain was > sixth year Marcus Flint. If there are only seven years of Hogwarts, > why is he in the third book? > > JKR: He had to do a year again! :-) " > > courtesy of the Goat search engine > (www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/) > > Unless there is another interview I've missed, she ain't admitting > nothing, so it seems we may have a Flint in the Alley. The most > likely reason for doing a year again would be a NEWT failure, though > OWL failure is a possibility. (As an aside, we don't yet know if > leaving school after completing OWLs is an option for Hogwarts > pupils, as it would be in Muggle schools.) > I think that JKR has "acknowledged" the "Flint" over Marcus Flint. I have 2 copies of PS, one dated from 1998 and another from 2001. In the first, Flint is a 6th year, but in the second he's a fifth year. To my mind, this is evidence that the mistake has been acknowledged, and rectified for later editions. I don't know what that says about JKR's interviews being canon though - clearly if canon is inconsistent it can change! I guess she made up the fact about Flint retaking a year on the spur of the moment, and then decided to change it later on. Ali From heidit at netbox.com Mon Jun 10 12:27:35 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:27:35 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Meaning of FLINT In-Reply-To: fe Message-ID: <16600080.241775706@imcingular.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39639 Oh, I hate when they do this. This is like what happened with the Wand Order situation - read posts from july - nov 2000 for more - if even the books themselves can be changed so long after publication, then is anything "canon"? Am I the only one very bothered by these changes? Heidi, who loves her fourth printing of ps very much. ----Original Message---- From: "alhewison" Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Meaning of FLINT Real-To: "alhewison" --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" wrote: > > FLINT is invoked at any time someone believes JKR has made an > internal > > inconsistency of the Potterverse: something that goes against the > rules > > she has set herself. Sometimes, it's interesting to note, those > errors > > can be explained even when JKR herself admits it wasn't thought out > to > > be like that: Flint, Marcus, failed his OWLS and had to repeat a > year, > > which is why he's still around in PoA. > > From www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript1.htm > > "Q: In the first book you said Slytherin house Quidditch captain was > sixth year Marcus Flint. If there are only seven years of Hogwarts, > why is he in the third book? > > JKR: He had to do a year again! :-) " > > courtesy of the Goat search engine > (www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/) > > Unless there is another interview I've missed, she ain't admitting > nothing, so it seems we may have a Flint in the Alley. The most > likely reason for doing a year again would be a NEWT failure, though > OWL failure is a possibility. (As an aside, we don't yet know if > leaving school after completing OWLs is an option for Hogwarts > pupils, as it would be in Muggle schools.) > I think that JKR has "acknowledged" the "Flint" over Marcus Flint. I have 2 copies of PS, one dated from 1998 and another from 2001. In the first, Flint is a 6th year, but in the second he's a fifth year. To my mind, this is evidence that the mistake has been acknowledged, and rectified for later editions. I don't know what that says about JKR's interviews being canon though - clearly if canon is inconsistent it can change! I guess she made up the fact about Flint retaking a year on the spur of the moment, and then decided to change it later on. Ali ________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 rusalka at ix.netcom.com Mon Jun 10 12:36:44 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 12:36:44 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Death (TBAY) (WAS Dumbledore's dispensib... In-Reply-To: <3a.27fff852.2a35eae6@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39640 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., elfundeb at a... wrote: > The Shack was Bangy because of all the rapid changes in who the characters > were. First Sirius was Evil! Then Sirius and Lupin were Evil! together. > Then Bang! Scabbers became Peter. Then Bang! Peter became Evil! and Lupin > and Sirius were redeemed. In fact, I think the Biggest Bang of PoA, was the > a bit of quiet conversation at the end of ch. 18: "'That's not a rat,' > croaked Sirius Black suddenly. 'What d'you mean -- of course he's a rat --' > 'No, he's not,' said Lupin quietly. 'He's a wizard.' 'An Animagus,' said > Black, 'by the name of Peter Pettigrew.'" > > Noisy? No. But dramatic? Bangy? Absolutely. The best Bangs, you see, are > the ones that reinvent the story. Exactly! And the Shrieking Shack scene is full of great moments like that: think of Lupin embracing Black, or Snape appearing for under the Invisibility Cloak. *All* the books are full of moments like that, from "You're a wizard, Harry" to "Severus Snape was a Death Eater." That's what Dumbledore's death needs -- a moment of stunning revelation, not a river of lava. > Debbie does the same, but suddenly veers back into the Dead Flamingo Bar.> > "George, are you going to stay there awhile? How about if I pop by later for > a drink or two? We need to talk about Snape." George's face lights up. It's been *ages* since a beautiful woman wanted to talk to him about Snape. "Darling," he says, "I'll be here for as long as you want me. Or until the martini supply runs out." Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From aiz24 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 10 12:57:17 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:57:17 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Meaning of FLINT Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39641 Ali wrote: >I think that JKR has "acknowledged" the "Flint" over Marcus Flint. I >have 2 copies of PS, one dated from 1998 and another from 2001. In >the first, Flint is a 6th year, but in the second he's a fifth year. >To my mind, this is evidence that the mistake has been acknowledged, >and rectified for later editions. I don't know what that says about >JKR's interviews being canon though - clearly if canon is >inconsistent it can change! I guess she made up the fact about Flint >retaking a year on the spur of the moment, and then decided to change >it later on. > Heidi lamented: >Oh, I hate when they do this. This is like what happened with the >Wand >Order situation - read posts from july - nov 2000 for more - if >even the >books themselves can be changed so long after publication, >then is >anything "canon"? > >Am I the only one very bothered by these changes? I wish they hadn't changed it because her spur-of-the-moment correction was clever and funny. But it all becomes part of the lore, doesn't it? I am 99% sure I have heard her talk about coming up with this solution in response to a close-reading child. Am LOONily searching for the reference now. BTW, our term was coined by Pippin in a stroke of genius even cleverer than JKR's original dodge, and wasn't originally an acronym. Tabouli honored it with an acronym later. Amy Z _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From Ali at zymurgy.org Mon Jun 10 12:57:19 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 12:57:19 -0000 Subject: Apparating again & text changes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39642 To contiue the apparation discussion, on re-reading the series I've always thought that Hagrid must have disapparated when he leaves Harry at Paddington station after their Diagon Alley visit (p66 PS UK edition) But: 1) If it is, surely he should not be allowed to do it, as he isn't allowed to do magic? 2) I know that he was allowed to do magic to get Harry, but that was supposed to stop once he got him - and you wouldn't think he'd have been able to apparate if he'd had no previous experience of it (or had he?) 3) If Hagrid didn't disapparate what did he do? Surely Hagrid hadn't just walked off the platform in the blink of Harry's eye? In the Vanishing Glass,PS p 27 UK edition, we learn about 3 strangers who bow/wave/shake hands with Harry. But "the weirdest thing about all these people was the way they seemed to vanish the second Harry tried to get a closer look". This seems to be another example of disapparating. The wizards here, seem to be wizard-fans of Harry rather than part of any Harry protection scheme - as shown by Dedalus Diggle's reaction to Harry in PS p 55 "Did you hear that? He remembers me! suggesting he he a fan. The message that these *ordinary* wizards can apparate together with the fact that wizards take their apparation test at the age of 17, suggests to me that Apparation is a readily acquirable skill (similar to our driving test which British muggles can also take from the age of 17). Perhaps JKR invented "splinching" and other apparation mistakes (Charlie landing 5 miles from his destination during his test) to explain why apparation is not the only mode of transport - so that broomsticks, the Knight Bus and Ministry cars could be convincingly used. Heidi on Flints: It bothers me as well. I know the books pretty well now, so if someone quotes something from the books I'll recognise it. This is why I got confused when someone quoted Ron from the US edition of CoS saying of Arthur and Molly "They don't need the car...they know how to apparate" It's not in my UK copy of CoS, nor did I find it listed in the Lexicon as a difference between the US and UK editions. It doesn't really change anything, but I now wonder if later UK editions of CoS have the phrase or if it is just an additional phrase for the US market. Ali From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Mon Jun 10 12:54:46 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:54:46 -0400 Subject: Professor R J Lupin Message-ID: <2D1479DD.02B7DB03.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39643 The peeling letters on Lupin's case. We've had this discussion before, so I may just be forgetting that I've remembered something here - nasty things, those memory potions. If Lupin's case is magic (we have the example of Moody's trunk), it may be that the display of his name updates when he changes title. The new 'Professor' letters are peeling because the case itself is old so the magic is getting a little tired (cf 'Troy, Mullet, Moran' getting weaker in GOF). Other examples of magically updating information are the house point scores, the QWC disply, and possibly the quote about Perenelle Flamel's age in PS. (The Marauder's Map is another example, and includes a title too: *Mrs* Norris, though, unfortunately, not Snape's - perhaps Snape is merely masquerading as a professor ;-) ) OTOH, if it *is* magic, couldn't he get the Grindylow tank in too? 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 wmginnypowell at msn.com Mon Jun 10 11:34:47 2002 From: wmginnypowell at msn.com (merimom3) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:34:47 -0000 Subject: Moody's Dark detectors reacting to Crouch Jr. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39644 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naamagatus" wrote: > In PoA, Ron buys Harry a Sneakoscope; > while he was tying it Errol, it whistled - because Ron shouldn't have > been using Errol for such a distance. I have to differ, Naama. The Sneakascope activated because Scabbers was, presumably, in the room with Ron when he was sending it to Harry. His presence was what kept it active every time they took it out. By the way, I'm new here, having devoured all four books in the last month. And let me just be forward and throw my hat into the Snape- will-be-redeemed camp right now. Ginny From pollux46 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 10 13:28:23 2002 From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:28:23 -0000 Subject: Comforting!Ron, Sensitive!Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39645 Penny wrote: >Hi -- > >Okay, I'm a few days late with this one .... but better late than never perhaps: I hope so! Cos' this is abysmally late as well. Sorry. . . COMFORTING!RON: Penny and I had a slight disagreement on how to read the following scene: GoF, "Beaubatons and Durmstrang": "That was a lie, * Harry,*" said Hermione sharply over breakfst, when he told her and Ron what he had done "You * didn't* imagine you scar hurting and you know it." "So what?" said Harry. "He's not going back to Azkaban because of me." "Drop it," said Ron sharply to Hermione. I suggested that Hemione was focusing here more on the moral issue of lying than on what Harry needs at the moment, while Penny felt that she was worrying about what negative repercussions could result for her friend from that lie. She wrote: >We're still at cross-purposes I'm afraid. You have a valid interpretation I think. But, >I actually disagree that Hermione's focus is on the lie that Harry told. I think what >she means is: "Your scar *did* hurt Harry and maybe you *need* Sirius, so it was >foolish to lie & say you'd been wrong about your scar. What if Sirius changes his >mind?" Hmm, yeah, I do see your point now, Penny. And that's a perfectly valid interpretation as well. That just wasn't my, err, instinctive reading. I guess I generally see Hermione as a stickler for that kind of rule. Influenced by her portrayal in the beginning of PS/SS I suppose. But for the record let me repeat that I * do* think that is a good thing. Harry and Ron, the boys who fly cars to school and sneak out of bounds under Invisibility Cloaks, * need* somebody like that around. They get into enough trouble as it is. And I * do* like Hermione. A lot. Which would bring me to. . . >I'd like to add *this* to my proof that Hermione means as much to Harry as Ron >does: > >"I'm not going anywhere!" said Harry fiercely. "ONE OF MY BEST FRIENDS is >muggle-born, she'll be first in line if the Chamber really has been opened --" >(emphasis mine). > >As if his statements & actions at the bottom of the Lake in the 2nd Task of GoF are >not enough ... *that* should do it. *That* is directly out of Harry's mouth (not the >words of the narrator describing his friends). > > Oh yes, of course. I'm sorry if it came across as anything else (boy, I am * not* good at this kind of discussion. . .), but I am totally behind you here. Hermione and Ron * are* Harry's equal friends. It's repeatedly stated in the books. And incidentally I just realised: never before I joined this group did it even occur to me which of the two I like best. Just as I never perceived Harry, through whose eyes I witnessed the whole story, as doing so. And I think I shall now return this blissful state of the uninitiated. It feels more right. SENSITIVE!HARRY I argued that Harry does not exhibit much sensitivity for others' feelings. Penny took me to task: > >Actually, I'd say that Harry is quite courteous to the Creeveys, all things considered, >and is unfailingly courteous to Ginny. I'm truly surprised the H/G shippers haven't >ripped your argument to shreds. > > Actually I am a H/G shipper myself. But, no, I don't see any indication of this in Harry's manner up till now. Now I'm going to have to snip a whole lot of very convincing canon support that Harry is indeed very courteous to everyone because it's just too much. Lets skip forwards to : > > As for sensitivity to others, I guess I'd turn it around & say why don't you provide >me examples of when Harry is *not* sensitive to the needs or feelings of others >around him. I think I've shown above that Harry is not insensitive or rude or abrupt >with Ginny or Dobby (and only to the extent necessary with Colin). He tries to be >polite but unencouraging to Colin, and IMO, this is demonstrating sensitivity. He >could be downright rude to Colin but he isn't. > > Sigh. Right, I guess I'm just going to have to give in to you Penny `cos no, no way can I match that evidence. And believe me I have looked. That's why this post is so late. In fact this troubled me so much that I actually called up friends and fellow Potterologists off--list to ask for their opinion. And the general consensus does seem to be that Harry is not very polite. Only one friend disagrees. But we could be just influencing each other because we have talked about the matter before. However I am stumped for canon quotations. This seems to be merely the general impression I'm left with overall. I can't defend it. But, for what it's worth, it does make me like Harry a bit more (if that makes any sense). Let me ask you something: when in CoS Colin asks Harry to sign his photo and Harry goes "No", how do you read that? Because I read it as an annoyed snap. And as for his treatment of Hermione in PoA, I'm afraid I remain unconvinced. You wrote: >As far as trying to make up with Hermione, his actions in trying to make up with her >do show evidence that he was sensitive to her feelings. He didn't try hard enough, >that's true. But, he was not completely insensitive to her feelings. He realized that >he & Ron were in the wrong & he at least tried to put things right. Hermione herself >is somewhat to blame; her pride stood in the way of admitting her own fault & >making efforts to get back on track with the boys. But, Harry's not completely >clueless about his own complicity in the arguments within the Trio. I understand both Ron and Hermione's attitudes in the whole argument more than Harry's, which I have always been rather uncomfortable with. Ron and Hermione, well, as Hagrid says people can sometimes be a bit stupid about their pets. And their pride too. But Harry's anger at Hermione, even about the Firebolt, soon burns itself out and Harry still goes along his merry way not really troubling himself about her feelings. Ron at least is in a true fit about the whole Scabbers thing most of the time. Though I do see how different people could evaluate this differently. Hermione does manage to divide her time between both her friends in GoF and makes it perfectly clear that she's on no?one's side. I don't see Harry doing this in PoA. He * doesn't * try hard enough and that just rubs me the wrong way. Look, Penny how about we strike a compromise, ok? Harry is an all? round brilliant fellow, with a few minor faults that merely make him more human. That sound about right? Charis Julia. From cindysphynx at comcast.net Mon Jun 10 13:35:50 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:35:50 -0000 Subject: Professor R J Lupin In-Reply-To: <2D1479DD.02B7DB03.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39646 David wrote: > We've had this discussion before, so I may just be forgetting that >I've remembered something here - nasty things, those memory potions. Yes, we have, but I can't remember either. I think I'll chalk it up to the Aging Potion someone slipped me. ;-) > If Lupin's case is magic (we have the example of Moody's trunk), >it may be that the display of his name updates when he changes >title. I think I'll go with the explanation that the reason the letters on Lupin's case are peeling is the same reason that the cuffs on Ron's dress robes are frayed -- Lupin used a spell, he wasn't very proficient with the spell, so he got a sloppy result. Cindy From aiz24 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 10 14:28:15 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:28:15 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Professor R J Lupin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39647 Cindy wrote: >I think I'll go with the explanation that the reason the letters on >Lupin's case are peeling is the same reason that the cuffs on Ron's >dress robes are frayed -- Lupin used a spell, he wasn't very >proficient with the spell, so he got a sloppy result. Amy, always ready to defend Lupin from charges of Evilness, Dishonesty or Incompetence, responds: Or whoever gave him the case and/or put the name on it for him wasn't very proficient with the spell. Let's say it was Peter. He's a good fall guy. ;-) Actually, I think any case is likely to be pretty beat up after 15 years of frequent use, and Lupin has been out in the working world for that long. He could have had a professor job straight out of school but lost it, so that case and title have been around for a long time. I don't interpret "unable to find paid work" as meaning that he has never landed a job. It's a phrase anyone might use if they can't keep a job consistently enough to stay out of poverty, even if they actually have had work on and off. Or it could be a Flint. What would JKR do if she didn't have us to go to such great lengths to imagine solutions for her? OTOH, who else would notice the holes in the first place? Amy Z _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Mon Jun 10 15:23:38 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:23:38 -0400 Subject: Sneakoscope reprise; Lupin the questionably evil Message-ID: <2DE05367.362D76C5.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39648 We have had some discussion about sneakoscopes. I think the critical question is: do they react to untrustworthy people (regardless of their current actions) or to actions that are untrustworthy presumably defined as breaches of trust)? The wider OT question of whether people are defined by their actions will run and run, no doubt. In his letter to Harry in POA 1, Ron describes the sneakoscope as reacting when someone untrustworthy is present. It's plausible that he is quoting either the salesperson or a knowledgeable family member. He mentions that it reacted, apparently to F&G putting beetles in Charlie's soup. Later on, on the Hogwarts Express, when Ron describes it as unreliable, he says it went off when he was attaching it to Errol's leg, and Hermione 'shrewdly' asks if he was doing anything untrustworthy at the time, based in all probability on book knowledge of the devices. So Ron's letter says that the sneakoscope reacts to people, while Hermione's question could be interpreted as implying she believes it reacts to actions. Given Hermione's known views on the seriousness of rulebreaking and moral infringements, and the wider place of rule-keeping in the series - much discussed in the recent past - I would go with Ron here. In that case, it seems implausible that the sneakoscope would (if functioning correctly) react either to the beetle prank or Ron tying it to Errol. A further consideration is that the likely role of the sneakoscope on the train is to make us suspect Lupin: I think the F&G and Errol examples are meant to sound suspiciously feeble and cause us to wonder what it is reacting to (and what lovely misdirection it is too - get it half-right and you suspect Lupin; get the Egypt examples right and you suspect Scabbers or any of the Weasleys - put them together and you only have Scabbers and Ron). JKR's daring twist is to use the sneakoscope in the same way again in GOF, but turn the warning on its head by having them broken. Since she hasn't ever told Harry or the reader in an authoritative voice what they have really reacted to, there is plenty of scope for them to come up again. How will she twist it this time? All this suggests that Dumbledore might benefit from having one in his office, though if a dark wizard dared to go there (as Crouch does) he might be able to take (temporary) measures to fool it, as he did the Goblet. While we are on the subject of deceit and the train journey in POA, a thought for Pippin: I know that it is questionable canon to use JKR inteview quotes, but do we have an explanation (other than evil!Crookshanks) for why Crookshanks the alleged part-Kneazle does not react to evil!Lupin? David __________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop at Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 10 17:01:15 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:01:15 -0000 Subject: Lupin the questionably evil In-Reply-To: <2DE05367.362D76C5.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39649 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., dfrankiswork at n... wrote: > > While we are on the subject of deceit and the train journey in POA, a thought for Pippin: I know that it is questionable canon to use JKR inteview quotes, but do we have an explanation (other than evil!Crookshanks) for why Crookshanks the alleged part-Kneazle does not react to evil!Lupin? I dealt with this in a previous post. Crookshanks doesn't react to Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle when they make their appearance in chapter 5 on the Hogwarts Express. It would be difficult to argue that those three are *all* benign. Their appearance is extremely brief, and they do nothing aside from sneering at Ron and being scared off by sleeping Lupin. I wonder what the purpose of it is, if it isn't to establish that Crookshanks doesn't have full Kneazle abilities . IMO, Crookshanks simply can't detect unsavoury individuals, just as Fleur can't fly. He can tell when people are transformed, so he reacts to Sirius and Pettigrew. Another thing I noticed on re-reading PoA is that Scabbers sticks his nose out of Ron's pocket on Christmas Day...when he knows Lupin will not spot him. That doesn't tell us anything about Lupin, but it's an interesting bit of business. Pippin whose mental image of Lupin now sports a tatty persian lamb collar and cuffs because he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Mon Jun 10 17:11:36 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:11:36 -0000 Subject: More on FLINT In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20001105124609.008e0a30@popmail.dircon.co.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39650 In message 5141, 20 Nov 2000 (if you are on webview you should be able to click the 'Up Thread' link), Neil Ward wrote: > Okay, here are a few bits and bobs from the "Desert Island Discs" interview with JKR... > She mentions children writing to her from overseas, asking thing like "Why hasn't Marcus Flint left the school ?". In that case she replied "He is so stupid he had to do another year .either that or I made a mistake. But I prefer answer (a)". > > Neil > > PS: I have a tape of the full programme (45 minutes). Stil got that tape, Neil? David From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Mon Jun 10 17:21:50 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:21:50 -0000 Subject: Now Kneazles (was Re: Lupin the questionably evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39651 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > IMO, Crookshanks simply can't detect unsavoury individuals, just > as Fleur can't fly. He can tell when people are transformed, so he > reacts to Sirius and Pettigrew. > Not having FB to hand I can't check, but the Lexicon has 'unsavoury or suspicious'. My take on Draco and myrmidons is that there is nothing suspicious about them: they are exactly what they appear to be. If Neville is hiding anything, it's not OOC or evil either. Doesn't Crookshanks get interested in Harry when he is inventing his Divination homework? David, wondering if Crookshanks' lack of interest means Draco can't be secretly good... From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 10 17:47:43 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:47:43 -0000 Subject: Now Kneazles (was Re: Lupin the questionably evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39652 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" wrote: > >Not having FB to hand I can't check, but the Lexicon has 'unsavoury or suspicious'. My take on Draco and myrmidons is that there is nothing suspicious about them: they are exactly what they appear to be. << Just so. Crookshanks is part-Kneazle and has that part of the kneazle power. Lupin is very careful to tell the *exact* truth in the Shack, IMO, for just this reason. Since Lupin is quite consciously telling the truth, Crookshanks' kneazle instinct for suspicious behavior would not be aroused. Lupin even has the chutzpah to admit he is an experienced liar --"I made up all sorts of stories." > David, wondering if Crookshanks' lack of interest means Draco can't be secretly good... Draco, maybe. But, last I looked, not even Heidi was maintaining that Crabbe and Goyle are secretly good. Pippin admiring the way Lupin has you all suckered From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Mon Jun 10 18:22:26 2002 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 10 Jun 2002 18:22:26 -0000 Subject: File - hbfile.html Message-ID: <1023733346.126445330.47037.m12@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39653 An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Mon Jun 10 18:24:59 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:24:59 -0000 Subject: FILK: We're All Evil Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39654 We're All Evil to the tune of "Take it Easy" by The Eagles Dedicated to all members of the Order of the Flying Hedgehog Scene: A clearing in the Forbidden Forest. Enter Dumbledore, McGonagall, Lupin, Black, and Arabella Figg, all wearing Death Eater outfits. A swarm of flying hedgehogs circles over their heads as they begin to sing. Well, we aren't what we seem, hatching sinister schemes, You never know what we might do. Slinking after Potter, that nasty little rotter, Gonna hand him off to You-Know-Who. We're all evil! We're all evil! Our benevolent facades are quite deceptive. If you're smart, you will beware, Watch for hedgehogs in the air, We're prepared to kill the spare, 'cause we're all evil! Harry never spots our underhanded plots, We've got that kid completely fooled. He thinks he's on the ball, but he's headed for a fall, He'll never live to finish school. We'll betray him! We'll AK him! The Boy Who Lived is going down, there's no question. When the moment finally comes For him to join his Dad and Mum, Won't he feel supremely dumb to find out we're evil! Well, we aren't what we seem, hatching sinister schemes, You never know when we'll attack. Any time you see a hedgehog up a tree, You know you'd better watch your back. We're all evil! We're all evil! Our benevolent facades are quite deceptive. We'll betray him! We'll AK him! The Boy Who Lived is going down, there's no question. Because we're all evil, Ever so evil! Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From sariadotia at aol.com Mon Jun 10 18:04:55 2002 From: sariadotia at aol.com (sariadotia at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:04:55 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Support Your Local Werewolf (somewhat lengthy) Message-ID: <133.f8d5c0d.2a364447@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39655 One reason I would suspect Lupin as being somewhat-evil... During the Conversation in the shrieking shack, between Lupin and Sirius, Lupin, says that he was not told about the switch to Peter as the secret keeper, because Sirius suspected Lupin as being in alliance with Voldemort. That doesn't really make sense. Why would Sirius and James suspect Lupin over Peter? Lupin must have done something to make them suspicious. Everyone always said how week Peter was, and how he hung around his powerful, protector like friends. So then why would they suspect Lupin and not Peter ... and I highly doubt it was because of his werewolf secret ... they weren't really the type to believe common bigotry, it didn't stop them from becoming friends with Lupin. If you ask me, he must have done something odd which tipped James and Sirius off.... ...Just a thought... Sarah [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From alina at distantplace.net Mon Jun 10 20:00:07 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 16:00:07 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Professor R J Lupin References: <2D1479DD.02B7DB03.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> Message-ID: <004c01c210b9$6d123860$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39656 The Marauder's Map is another example, and includes a title too: *Mrs* Norris, though, unfortunately, not Snape's - perhaps Snape is merely masquerading as a professor ;-) ) David That example doesn't count. "Mrs" is part of the cat's name, not her title. So the map doesn't show people's titles on it. Alina. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.368 / Virus Database: 204 - Release Date: 29/05/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Victim_of_Atlantis at hotmail.com Mon Jun 10 20:19:38 2002 From: Victim_of_Atlantis at hotmail.com (Lost Feyth) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 16:19:38 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Professor R J Lupin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39657 David wrote: >If Lupin's case is magic (we have the example of Moody's trunk), >it may be that the display of his name updates when he changes >title. I can see where that is a possibility, but what about this: Almost everything Lupin owns is second hand. Perhaps he received the briefcase from his father? After all, we aren't sure of who taught when the Marauders were at school, and Lupin's father could have been a professor at one time. Just a thought. Lost Feyth Want to say a hello to everyone, being new on the list. ^_^ It's great so far, I've tired out my HP friends with my own ideas and discussions of the books. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From Edblanning at aol.com Mon Jun 10 20:54:05 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 16:54:05 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] TBAY Sirius Black Is Ever So Evil Message-ID: <172.9813c9e.2a366bed@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39658 Charis Julia: > "Besides, Eloise is right. This is croquet. And everyone knows what's > the absolute necessity in order play croquet, don't they?" > > Flamingos of course! Ah, yes, thank you Cindy," Charis gracefully > accepts the one handed to her. "But something's wrong here, wouldn't > you say? Something with the colour plan. . . This is pink when what > we really need. . ." (Charis glances up at the Black hedgehog and > then back at the flamingo) "is. . .is. . .green! Yes. Cabbage green." > Charis whips out a can of paint and ducks the bird in humming to > herself. (* We're painting flamingos green, we're painting flamingos > green. . .*) "And then just one more minor alteration in the > decorations. . ." Handling her flamingo as if it were a wand she > points it straight at the wicket, which that promptly redesigns > itself to form the name ARABELLA FIGG. Charis steps back to admire > her handiwork. "Ah yes. Better. Much better." Aha! Yes! If only we can introduce some more, differently coloured flamingos, it will make croquet so much easier! The pink flamingos, remember are indicative of Snape's supposed loves and we only have one left since I unfortunately strangled its companion (but didn't someone recently suggest another love for Snape? Come to think of it, STUDMUFFIN proposes a whole harem, so perhaps we're not as badly off as I thought). But yes, why not have green flamingos to represent Sirius' proposed loves? > > * * * > > Some weeks ago Cindy proposed her brilliant Pillow Talk idea. > Unfortunately this obvious stroke of genius was unappreciated and > eventually discharged. Now, however I move for its re?examination. I never quite understood *why* the Sirius/Arabella partnership was abandoned. I never thought the objections were strong enough to completely disprove it; I rather warm to it, myself. > > According to Pillow Talk, Sirius upon his escape from (the cells of) > Azkaban went straight to his old flame Arabella Figg in order to > catch up on the latest in the Wizarding World. Several objections > where proposed against this theory, of which unfortunately I now only > remember my own: If Arabella knew that Sirius was innocent and had > heard his Pettigrew story why didn't she take matters into her own > hands? Why didn't she simply pay the Weasleys a friendly visit and > ask to see their rat? Much simpler than letting Sirius mess > everything up in his usual fashion really. Yes, but plots *depend* on people messing up, don't they? ;-) > > I now know the answer to this question. And no, it is not, as I then > naively proposed, that Arabella simply did not know. Matters are much > more sinister than that: Arabella Figg Is Ever So Evil. Well, yes, she's Florence Lestrange, isn't she? > > And Sirius Black too. They Are Both Ever So Evil. And not only post? > Voldemort's fall either. Since Always. > > Yes, exactly. Of course. > > Who is Arabella Figg anyway? If she's a Mrs now, what was her maiden > name? Don't know? No idea whatsoever? Well, here's a hint: Albus, > Aberforth, Algie (as someone recently proposed) aaaaaand. . . that's > right! Arabella! Arabella Dumbledore. Ooh, even the sound of it is > right! Yes. That's why Albus trusts her so explicitly. That's why he > gave her the all-important job of watching over Harry. That's why he > wants her alerted at once after Voldemort's rebirth. Arabella, Arabella.....Where have I heard that before? I must confess that my current bedside reading has made me wonder whether the 'J' of Lupin's name stands for Jude. > > But is Dumbledore right to trust so unquestioningly in his darling > little sis'? Oh, I wouldn't be so sure about that. . .Not sure at > all. . . > > You see, well, Aberforth, well, he can't even read, can he? And > Algie? He's a nutcase if I ever saw one. But Arabella? She must > obviously be talented. Otherwise she could not have been one of the > Crowd, could she? And so, of course, she's jealous. > > I mean, why does Albie get to hog all the glory anyway? Since when > does he get off being the greatest wizard in the world? The one that > defeats Grindewald and even Voldemort fears? Fear Albus, ha! That's a > laugh! But it was always that way. . .Their parents were so proud of > him. "Albus this and Albus that!" What about Arabella, huh? But now, > now its * her* turn! She'll show everyone! Won't they regret the way > they treated her when she's the Supreme Ruler of the Universe? `Cos > that's her plan naturally. That's why she hooked up with the grandson > of the Terrible Grindelwald. Oh. So she's not Mrs Lestrange. The move from Albus (think of the Latin) to Black, you mean? So Sirius is into older women? *Seriously* older women? (If she's Albus' sister, presumably she doesn't need to polyjuice herself older.) Or this is all in the course of duty? Eeeeew!!! Oops. Sorry. Got a bit ageist there. Obviously he's just stringing her along, yes? Poor Arabella! > > Dicentra's looking interested. "You mean Sirius's grandfather really > * was* Grindelwald? Sirius really * is* the offspring of the > unfortunate Andromeda Grindelwald Black? He really * is* after his > own version of world domination? With himself in charge? Niiiice!" > > Charis nods her head sorrowfully. "Yes, of course. All for the sake > of his darling dead mother who's life was so abruptly cut off and > who's memory has been so slanderously blemished. He is the protector > of the Pack after all. It's just that the pack isn't comprised quite > as we had initially imagined." > > Dicentra nods fervently. All this is her baby after all. Eloise is > merely looking politely curious. No, a mite more than that, if a little sceptical (although caring for all hedgehogs with a scrap of canon to their name). > mistrustful. "Look, I'm not buying none of this > Sirius Was Seriously Evil All Along hogwash. He * was* the Potters' friend, > he * did* hate > Pettigrew!" > > Charis looks at Cindy in mild surprise. "Well, of course! I don't > presume to propose that opposite. He still liked the Potters well > enough. They didn't mess with his plans for ruling the universe in > any way. And after all Black's not with Voldemort, is he? And > Voldemort's the one who killed Lily and James, right?" > > > Or is he. . .? Oooh. Now that *is* Ever So Evil! > > > Charis Julia, who is not at all sure about a thing she just wrote, > Eloise, who isn't sure about any of it either, but quite likes shell-shocked Neville and is very confused about whether she and Charis Julia agree on this (and are therefore *both* boring) or not. ;-) For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin20Files/hypoth eticalley.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 meboriqua at aol.com Mon Jun 10 21:30:54 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:30:54 -0000 Subject: Sensitive!Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39659 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "charisjulia" wrote: > Let me ask you something: when in CoS Colin asks Harry to sign his > photo and Harry goes "No", how do you read that? Because I read it as an annoyed snap.> Oh, come on! What if it was an annoyed snap? Does that make Harry a nasty rude git? I don't think so. Harry and Colin are *peers*. Harry, like Colin, is just trying to be a student at Hogwarts. What I see no evidence of is Colin's desire to get to know Harry - not Famous Harry Potter. Asking Harry for an autograph? I find that ridiculous, forward and just generally rude. Colin refuses to pick up on Harry's discomfort with his fame and with Colin's unflattering admiration of Harry. He continues to follow him, take his photo, say "Hi!" 3467 times a day... I think Harry has well earned a frustrated "No!" at some point in response to Colin's badgering. Can you tell I'm not a Colin Creevey fan? --jenny from ravenclaw ************************************ From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Mon Jun 10 21:55:05 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:55:05 -0000 Subject: Marcus FLINTs Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39660 I am starting PoA again. I ran into a whole bunch of questions just in chapter #5, "The Dementor," that bother me. #1 What is the deal with the Hogwart's Express ticket? Harry only needs one in the first book. Do only first years need them? If so, what purpose do they serve. (I am sure this has been asked before. I am curious as to the concensus, if any.) #2 Trunks. Harry and Ron drop off their trunks at the mostly empty last carriage, then hang around on the platform. They then board the train and search for a compartment. They finally find the very last compartment empty except for Lupin. No mention is made of trunks between dropping them off at the carriage and the sneakoscope going off. How did they get to the compartment? Would they have just left little Ginny to manhandle her trunk by herself? Are there Train- elves? #3 Side question. Why does Harry almost invariably arrive at the last minute and has to take the very last compartment? #4 The compartment is specifically mentioned as the last one in the carriage of the very last carriage of the train, yet later we see that "People were chasing backward and forward past the door of their compartment." How is that possible if it is the last compartment on the train? #5 When Harry comes to, he finds Ron and Herminone kneeling next to him and somebody is calling "Harry! Harry! Are you all right?" The other people in the compartment are Ginny, Neville, and Prof. Lupin. Yet later it seems a big mystery that Lupin knows Harry's name. Why? #6 The peeling letters of "Professor" R. J. Lupin. No definitive answer, but it is possible that only "R. J. Lupin" is peeling. "Professor" has been added just recently and not very well. #7 Why doesn't the Dementor extinguish Lupin's hand-flame? #8 (Later in the book) Why is Lupin's Boggart a silvery-white orb? The moon is a sphere that is lit on one side and is in shadow on the other. That is why it waxes and wanes. If Lupin was truly afraid of the full moon, wouldn't the boggart take the form of an orb that is half-lit, and half-dark? If that be the case, it would be difficult for the students to mistake it as a crystal ball. Things so far which are not FLINTs or don't require TOUCHEs: Anything relying upon somebody saying something. Mr. Weasley mentions to Molly that Ron and Harry have ended up in the forest twice before. He is having an argument with his wife about a very emotional topic. You can't expect him to be dead-on precise under those circumstances. Ron and Hermione not being able to bring Harry some butter-beer but Lupin has it available in bottle form. R&H could have had a number of reasons for not being able to bring any to Harry. A few suggestions: They were already overloaded. The store closed before they could get some. The bottled-beer was out of stock. They ran out of money. They could have meant to, forgot to, remembered too late, and then "improved" the truth by telling Harry they couldn't bring any. Feedback anybody? Cheers! :) Marcus From Ali at zymurgy.org Mon Jun 10 22:03:39 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:03:39 -0000 Subject: Would JKR make Lupin evil? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39661 All the posts about *evil* Lupin have scared me. I can't help feeling a bit suspicious of one of favourite characters - that is despite all the valiant attempts at *proving* Lupin's innocence. BUT, although I cannot back up my argument with canon I doubt whether JKR would make Lupin evil. JKR has developed a world without racism as we know it - but nevertheless full of prejudice and bigotry. Isn't she using the likes of Lupin and the questions of full blood etc to challenge racism, stereotyping etc? JKR has allowed us, the reader to advance beyond Lupin's Wizard counterparts by allowing us - through Harry - to trust Lupin. What would she actually be saying to us if Lupin did turn out to *be* evil? She would be saying that the WW is right to distrust Lupin - and by inference - we are right to distrust those Lupin represents (be they the mentally ill, the deformed, those of different religions or ethnic backgrounds - but more simply the misunderstood, the different ones). Whilst I acknowledge that it is dangerous to predict/ or tightly define authorial intent; JKR does seem to have some firm beliefs which are visible through the Potterverse. Whilst the slavery of the House Elves remains a moot point, JKR's desire to show social misfits and second class citizens as deserving of our love and/or respect remains consistent. If this is the case, the only way that Lupin would then turn out to be evil, would be if JKR is then trying to say "Look, this is what happnes IF you distrust and shun social misfits, they respond by turning against you. IMO this seems to be a bit like over egging the pudding - when all she needs to say is, Look! get to know these people, trust these people, and their prove trustworthy. Ali From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Mon Jun 10 23:15:25 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 23:15:25 -0000 Subject: The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack (VERY LONG) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39662 Note: Editions quoted are PS/SS UK paperback, CoS UK paperback, PoA UK hardback, GoF UK hardback. WARNING: This post is long. Very long. So very long that I strongly recommend settling down with a nice cup of tea, a biscuit (U.S.: Cookie) and, optionally, a copy of PoA before you start reading it :- ). Are you sitting comfortably? Then we'll begin. One question I've been asking myself is: 'what sort of war is the Voldemort-Potter war?' The answer is that it's an undercover sort of war. A terrorist war. A modern war. Non-British readers may be largely unaware that the 'United' Kingdom was embroiled in a low-scale civil war for over 20 years of my and JKR's life (1970's to 1990's). It's not surprising that her fictional civil war resembles the one she will have seen on the news every day. Loyalties in this war are often inherited. Big pitched battles are almost unknown. Instead you get a series of small fights. In some, individual wizards are tortured, possibly in front of their children (Longbottoms), or killed in places where their families can come back and find their bodies (GoF p.127). Nobody knows who is on which side (GoF p. 457 "You don't know who his supporters are, you don't know who's working for him and who isn't." ) Both sides use undercover agents to spy on and betray their supposed friends (PoA p. 152 "Dumbledore... had a number of useful spies".) ***What sort of tactics do you use in such a war?*** Intense secrecy. 'Need to know' is likely to be paramount. "I shall answer your questions unless I have a very good reason not to..." ( PS/SS p 216) Continued intelligence work. 'My sources currently tell me.." (CoS p.242) An awareness that some (ideally the minimum necessary) bad means may have to be used to attain good ends ("Nicolas and I have had a little chat..." (PS/SS p. 215) - probably one of the most chilling phrases Dumbledore ever uses). ***Misinformation for the other side.*** Misinformation is an interesting subject. It can include deceiving allies and friends. Most people on the list seem to agree that Dumbledore *may* consider Harry a possible leakage point to Voldemort (through the Scar) and may be deliberately allowing Harry to draw false conclusions. Misinformation includes letting known enemy agents escape because they either have a weakness you will later be able to use or because they have been given false information. One of the main subjects of this post will be the idea that Dumbledore and Snape intended Peter Pettigrew to escape back to Voldemort. Misinformation can also include not arresting known spies, because they're more useful to you in place (being fed controlled misinformation). If we do have an Evil!McGonagall, then the fact that she's still at Hogwarts does not mean Dumbledore has no suspicion of her. In this post I'm discussing the Shrieking Shack from the viewpoint of 'letting a known enemy agent (Peter Pettigrew) escape' and 'minimum necessary bad means (Sirius Black remains unjustly accused) to attain good ends (Harry's survival)'. ***The Premises***: Snape is working to some extent undercover. Snape wants Harry, not himself, to take control of the events in The Shrieking Shack. Snape and Dumbledore know all about Pettigrew being the Secret Keeper. Snape and Dumbledore already know Peter Pettigrew is Scabbers. They intend to let Pettigrew escape. But after Harry has saved his life. Dumbledore has *no* idea whether Sirius Black is a Voldemort supporter or not. Snape is certain Black is guilty, hates him, and is very suspicious of Lupin. Snape's genuine concussion was a (nearly disastrous) accident. Dumbledore cannot afford to have Black's innocence publicly declared. *** Snape is working to some extent undercover.*** It is impossible to disguise Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore [and Voldemort knows about it anyway after SS/PS], but it is possible to make Harry and others believe that Snape hates Harry; so much so that he might be willing to work against his interests or even betray him. Would Harry believe right now that Snape would be loyal to him if Dumbledore wasn't there? Snape as undercover agent has been discussed in my posts #39273 and #39335 where I talk about the 'those darn kids' scene in PoF Chapter 22, and the 'Obstructive Snape' scene in GoF Chapter 28. Both of those scenes are plausibly compatible with a view of Snape as someone who is in fact trying to help Harry [rather than being a genuine complete git with an insanely jealous hatred of Harry [grin] ]. His apparent hatred of Harry is a cover story. The following arguments take this viewpoint for granted. ***Snape wants Harry, not himself, to be in control of the situation. *** In the Shrieking Shack, Snape apparently strides in and takes complete control of the situation, until Harry grabs control of things and accidentally knocks Snape out. In fact, a possible reading of the scene is that Snape is deliberately goading Harry to attack him. Snape reveals himself once he has heard enough to be sure that the most immediate danger facing the Trio is being talked to death. For whatever reason, Black and Lupin are using persuasion. Their plans do not include killing Harry. Snape's initial actions are aimed at reducing the danger to himself and removing the danger of Lupin saying something about Peter Pettigrew. Lupin is armed with a wand; he's the most immediate threat. He's also talking too much. Snape solves those problems very efficiently with his magical rope trick. However, he doesn't solve the problem of Sirius in the same efficient manner. Instead he holds him off by pointing his wand at him. JKR's description of Harry at this point: 'Harry stood there, paralysed, not knowing what to do or who to believe.' (PoA p. 264) It's Hermione who takes action here: she suggests that Snape listens to their side of the story. And Snape tells her to shut up in no uncertain terms. I'll discuss his very interesting terminology later on. Once Snape has successfully stopped Hermione he still makes no action to put restraints on Sirius. He could surely make the nasty series of threats he's about to make much more effectively if Sirius was also tied up and helpless [it's more fun, as well. You can take your time.:-) ]. Snape may, of course be trying to goad Sirius to attack him again, so he can justifiably kill him. But his threats seem to be much more orientated to another person in the room. Harry. Snape's first threat against Sirius is that he'll hand Sirius over to the Dementors; after the events in PoA everyone in the school knows how much Harry hates and fears Dementors. Harry is still too undecided to make any move. Snape forces the action on by saying that they're all leaving now. Sirius is still not tied up; it is still practicable for Harry to choose to help Sirius and Lupin; to deal with them by himself and make his own decisions about the truth of their story. But Harry still doesn't try to stop Snape - so Snape suggests that perhaps he might feed Lupin (who he knows Harry likes - he's seen Harry with Lupin) to the Dementors as well. Harry finally acts; he moves in front of the door. Note that at this point, in complete contrast to Snape's very effective action with Lupin and his checkmating of Sirius, Snape doesn't *do* anything to Harry. He just tells him to get out of the way. And no, it's not because he's got one hand full of rope and the other training his wand on Sirius Black. We've already seen how quickly Snape can cast spells; and we've seen he can cast spells with his non wand hand whilst simultaneously covering Black. Some discussion of Snape's use of magic might be relevant here: He produces rope out of his wand (to tie up Lupin) without any warning magic word. He convinces Hermione to keep quiet because he's near to losing control by shooting some harmless sparks out of his wand (while still keeping it trained on Sirius). Is he really losing control? Remarkable coincidence that he achieves exactly the effect he wants. :-) He controls the ropes *with his non wand hand* (clicks his fingers) whilst STILL keeping that wand trained on Sirius In this scene Snape shows himself as a good multi-tasker, capable of making split second decisions on the right spell to use. With the ability he's already displayed it should have been simple for Snape to remove Harry from that door with a suitable spell that wouldn't have hurt Harry. (Expelliarmus would have knocked Harry over, for example). Or to tie Sirius up, then deal with Harry. Instead he simply keeps repeating 'Get out of the way'. Finally, knowing Harry is getting very angry, but obviously still not angry enough, he uses the one thing almost guaranteed to make the boy furious enough to attack him - he insults Harry's dead father, just before making it absolutely clear that if Harry doesn't get out of the way he will use force [mind you, by this time Snape's probably feeling like using quite considerable force :-) ]. Oh, and have you noticed that Snape already knows that insulting Harry's father makes Harry lose his temper? See Chapter 14 (PoA p. 210). Interesting, isn't it? We are then asked to accept that three 13 year old wizards, with minimal training in duelling, can outdraw a very angry trained adult wizard who has considerable duelling experience (see CoS), has his wand already up and who is now in the middle of an argument with Harry (and has just threatened to use force). And who, incidentally, has already demonstrated in the preceding scene that he's quite capable of outmanouvering both Sirius and Lupin and can manage magic with his non-wand hand. But the 13 year olds can apparently act so quickly that Snape hasn't the time to utter a syllable or take a step. You'll forgive me if I don't believe a word of it. ;-) ***Snape (and Dumbledore) know about Pettigrew being the secret keeper.*** This one is tricky. However, some canon for you: "The guards told Fudge that Black's been talking in his sleep for a while now." (Arthur Weasley, PoA, p. 54) "I heard things in Azkaban, Peter.... they all think you're dead, or you'd have to answer to them... I've heard them screaming all sorts of things in their sleep. Sounds like they think the double-crosser double crossed them." PoA p. 271 And an undeniable fact. Hagrid has been in Azkaban. (CoS and PoA). In other words, Azkaban is not completely isolated; information about Peter has two or three possible routes out. Does Dumbledore have sources there, or did he get the news about Pettigrew from Hagrid? Don't know, but what we do know is what he later tells Harry: "I myself gave evidence to the Ministry that Sirius had been the Potter's Secret Keeper." (PoA p. 287) It's an entirely reasonable comment, since he's talking about the evidence against Sirius, but it's what he doesn't say that is really fascinating. What he doesn't say is 'I myself *believed* Sirius was the Potter's Secret Keeper'. ***Snape and Dumbledore already know Peter Pettigrew is Scabbers the Rat*** One of the things most people have noticed about the Shrieking Shack (PoA pp. 262-265) is that Snape is extremely anxious to *shut people up*. He shuts Lupin up by sending ropes (and a gag) out of his wand, he shuts Black up by threatening him with Dementors, and he shuts Hermione up by shouting at her. Let's look at what he says to Hermione. It's Snape's choice of words that is important here. "...For once in your life, *hold your tongue*". [author's emphasis] and "...DON'T TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!" (PoA p. 264) These aren't plain 'shut up' threats. These are the kind of things you say when someone's about to ruin everything by talking too much. Amanda Lewanski has given a detailed explanation of what Snape does and does not hear in the Shack in post # 15233. To recap briefly, the point where he enters the bedroom is the point where Lupin has been telling his life story. It includes the information that Peter is an Animagus. At no point does anyone specifically say that Peter had the Animagi form of a rat. To discuss that rat...or, rather, to NOT discuss that rat. Sirius says "As long as this boy brings the rat up to the castle..." Snape promptly shifts the conversation away from rats by threatening that he doesn't need to take Black near the castle. Black's next line is "You - you've got to hear me out. The rat - look at the rat-" and again Snape promptly forces the conversation on; this time by switching to threats against Lupin. (PoA p.264) [I'm aware I've already argued that Snape is using these lines to goad Harry. As I've said, Snape is a good multi-tasker, entirely capable of killing two birds with one stone. Actually he's killing three birds - he also manages to revenge himself on Sirius and Lupin for that Prank. :-)] Snape clearly does not want people to start on a long explanation about Pettigrew being a rat. Why? The clue comes not in this scene but in the later hospital (plot explanation) scene. (PoA pp 285 -286). Watch what happens when people either mention the word 'rat', or look like they're about to. Harry: "Minister, listen! Sirius Black's innocent! Peter Pettigrew faked his own death! We saw him tonight! You can't let the Dementors do that thing to Sirius, he's..." It's Fudge who stops Harry here, convinced Harry is confunded. The point is that as long as Harry doesn't mention Peter-Pettigrew-is-a- rat, Snape doesn't bother to interrupt. His Confunded story has persuaded Fudge the children don't know what they're saying. Hermione: "It was Ron's rat, he's an Animagus, Pettigrew, I mean.." Snape: You see Minister? Confunded, both of them..." Snape has suddenly shut Hermione up. She mentioned the rat. [I'm not sure if Poppy Pomfrey has been given any instructions. Her actions are consistent either with a ferocious matron worried about her patients or with someone who has been told to make sure the children don't talk too much, but not let in on why.] later in the scene: Snape:" I suppose he's told you the same fairy tale he's planted in Potter's mind? Something about a rat, and Pettigrew being alive-" Dumbledore: "That, indeed, is Black's story." *Dumbledore* has just shut *Snape* up. And, Dumbledore has carefully moved the emphasis away from what Snape knows to what Black has said; and by using 'story' he has implied that what Black has said is not true. Why? Snape was not supposed to admit that he knows the words 'Pettigrew' and 'rat' are connected. Note the dash at the end of Snape's line to indicate he was going to continue the sentence. What Dumbledore is afraid of is that any second now Snape is going to mention 'Animagi', or even worse, 'Scabbers'. Fudge will take *Snape's* evidence seriously. Snape, after all, has not claimed *he* is confunded. It's at this point Dumbledore is described as 'surveying Snape closely' [as well he might; with a recent concussion our Severus can hardly be expected to be on top form]. Snape, however, picks up the cue from Dumbledore and moves to make a quick recovery from his near-blunder: "And does my evidence count for nothing? Peter Pettigrew was not in the Shrieking Shack, nor did I see any sight of him in the grounds." Which is the literal truth, of course, since he only saw Scabbers. Oh, and note the nice use of 'evidence', as opposed to 'story'. At this point Hermione breaks in helpfully: "That was because you were knocked out, Professor! You didn't arrive in time to hear -"[and the sentence would have continued:' that Peter Pettigrew is an Animagus and he's been masquerading as Ron's rat Scabbers all this time'] Except at this point Snape shuts her up with extreme force: "Miss Granger, HOLD YOUR TONGUE!" Even Fudge is startled. And what does Dumbledore do? His normal style is to insist that Harry should tell his side of the story. Here he gets Fudge, Snape and Poppy Pomfrey out of the room before the conversation can go any further. Dumbledore doesn't want any embarrassing discussions about Pettigrew's rat transformations either (or about Sirius's innocence). [It is, incidentally, at this point that Snape realises that Dumbledore is going to let Black escape, when Dumbledore sends everyone out (and doesn't leave with them) so he can tell Harry and Hermione the escape plan - if you look at the next few lines between Snape and Dumbledore, you can see that they can be read as Snape saying 'no, don't, Black is guilty' and Dumbledore saying is 'It is my decision'. Snape shuts up and soldiers, and later returns to give his Oscar nominated performance in 'Those Darn Kids.'] The point is that neither Severus Snape or Albus Dumbledore would have any reason to shift the conversation so deliberately away from the word 'rat' unless they *both* knew that 'Peter-Pettigrew-is- alive-and-he's-Scabbers'. Snape already knew this in the shack; in the hospital we see that Snape is not working alone. He and Dumbledore are working as a team. Sorry, Evil!Snape fans [grin]. How do they know? Speculation City here :-). Well, Dumbledore was Headmaster in the Marauder's day. Lupin and Sirius may *think* Dumbledore didn't know about their Animagus abilities but he certainly knows a great deal about what students get up to at present- day Hogwarts, even if he chooses to turn a blind eye (it's interesting that he knew that James stole food from the kitchens in his invisibility cloak). It's a very reasonable assumption that in the two years between the Marauders learning to become Animagi and their leaving school, Dumbledore (the ex-transfiguration teacher) found out. What canon tells us is what Sirius and Remus *think* about Dumbledore's knowledge - not what Dumbledore actually does know. So Dumbledore probably (non-canon assumption) already knew Pettigrew was an Animagi; when is he likely to have realised he was Scabbers? Again, we're off-canon here, but probably at precisely the same moment Sirius did - when he saw the picture of Scabbers and his missing toe in the Daily Prophet. Did he make some discreet enquiries to try and find how long Scabbers had been with the Weasley's? Was hiding in Hagrid's hut Pettigrew's very own idea? Or did Hagrid deliberately find him and keep him there? Why didn't Pettigrew slip past the Dementors before the scene in the shack? If Sirius could do it, so could he, and leaving Hogwarts wouldn't be half as dangerous as staying (not with Black and a mad part-kneazel to contend with). Or did he not leave because Dumbledore was inconspicuously making sure he *couldn't* escape. Not until he was supposed to. How did Snape know? Dumbledore told him. Why? Because Snape is his loyal lieutenant, that's why. [ I can hear Cindy's screams from here ;-) ] ***They intend to let Pettigrew escape. But after Harry has saved his life.*** Did Dumbledore intend to let Pettigrew escape? Well, why else are both Snape and Dumbledore firmly avoiding the word 'rat'? [I doubt that they're both phobic :-) ]. How fast can a rat travel? If Fudge had sent out a search party immediately, might Pettigrew have been recaptured? Dumbledore certainly appears remarkably unconcerned with Pettigrew's escape when he talks about it to Harry later (PoA p. 311). In fact, he's *pleased*. He tells Harry why [and why not - it's at least even money that Pettigrew will let it slip to Voldemort that he has a 'life-debt' to Harry Potter and it will make Harry feel better about the escape he *can't* be told was planned]. Snape, of course, was avoiding the subject of rats and Pettigrew in the shack. Again, why is this? To make things bad for Sirius? If that's the case, why not hand Sirius over to the Dementors when he has the chance? When asked about the Dementors he says "By the time I came round they were heading back to their positions at the entrances"(PoA p.284) - not 'they were nowhere to be seen.' Snape had an excellent opportunity there to say 'excuse me, but haven't you forgotten someone?' No, if Snape knows about Peter-the-rat, he knows Pettigrew is right there in Ron's hands. But one thing Snape shows in the Shack ( when Lupin and Sirius find themselves completely outclassed) is that he's far too competent to let someone escape accidentally. For an 'accidental' escape to be plausible Snape must appear unaware of Pettigrew's existence. [Snape's Dark Mark (GoF) suggests Voldemort probably knows just how competent Snape really is - and Sirius fans can console themselves with the thought that their hero was wandless, weak, and exhausted]. It's also why Snape can't stay hiding under the invisibility cloak. There is too much danger of his having to step in and help Harry at a point where it would have been obvious that he must have heard everything about Peter-the-rat. Consider; if Voldemort thinks that Harry's saving Peter's life was an unintended accident then he will probably decide that he needs Peter badly enough to take the risk of the 'life-debt' magic. [For example, Snape is widely regarded as hating James Potter, never repaid the life-debt and had to transfer it to James's son (PS/SS)]. But if he thinks that Dumbledore 'let' Peter Pettigrew escape? When he's already had one Death Eater spy in Snape? Will Harry have an opportunity to save Pettigrew's life? Is Pettigrew's life in danger? More than a little, I'd say. Even Snape, working on his Black-is-a-murdering-swine theory, would probably reckon Sirius Black is not going to be exactly happy with dear Peter, who landed him in Azkaban. And if Black drags Ron (and Scabbers) off, you can rely on Harry to try and save his friend. Harry did exactly that in CoS when Ginny was captured. Does Dumbledore think Harry will let Black kill Pettigrew? No. "I knew your father very well, both at Hogwarts and later, Harry. He would have saved Pettigrew too, I am sure of it." (PoA p. 311) And he was sure of Harry. ***Dumbledore has NO idea whether Black is a Death Eater or not. Snape is certain Black is guilty, hates him, and is very suspicious of Lupin.*** Is there a listie who doesn't believe that Severus Snape hates Sirius Black? What we don't know is *why* Snape hates Black so much. [This is usually the point where Prank comes up and wags his tail and/or LOLLIPOP sets sail with all flags flying. :-) ] I'll be truthful - I don't know why Snape hates Black either. But I'm quite sure he does. ;-) Snape's hatred of Sirius is shown when Black moves to attack him; JKR's description is 'It would have been impossible to say which face showed more hatred' (PoA p. 264). She doesn't use 'seemed' or 'appeared' [and she's very fond of those words where Snape's concerned]. The children believe that the switch in Secret Keepers automatically exonerates Sirius; more cynical adults (like Snape) could probably come up with two or three nasty reasons for the switch - for example that BOTH Black and Pettigrew were traitors, Sirius didn't want to risk being outed, and deliberately suggested Pettigrew knowing the information would get straight back to Voldemort. The fight between Pettigrew in which twelve people are killed then becomes a falling out between traitors, with Black laughing his head off because Pettigrew fingered him after all. Snape isn't interested in Black's switching story - I've argued above that he already knows it. He just doesn't believe Black-the-murderer- at-sixteen could have had an innocent reason for switching [me neither :-) - but I think it's 'weakness' rather than 'evil']. And numerous recent posts have discussed Evil!Lupin and why Snape might be correct to be suspicious of him. Snape's orders (or possibly his own integrity) mean he has to bring Black and Lupin back alive if possible. The moment when Black moves to attack would have been the perfect time to kill him if Snape had intended to. Instead he gives Sirius a very clear warning not to make any false moves - because Snape is prepared to kill if he has to. Snape's attitude is that he'll take Sirius back to Dumbledore, but he's darn well going to make him sweat a little first [hey, I never said Snape was *nice* :-) ] And he does make him sweat. In fact, he psychologically repeats the trick that that Black played on him, all those years ago - he makes Sirius and Lupin (who between them made Snape believe he was going to die) believe that now they are going to die. Note the difference between what Snape says in the Shack, and what he actually does when left alone with Sirius and (he believes) no conscious witnesses. As several previous posts have pointed out, what he does is to provide Black with a stretcher and a chance to tell Dumbledore his story (PoA p. 301). Dumbledore thinks that Black "...has not acted like an innocent man." (PoA p. 287) but is prepared to give him a chance. We don't see that off-stage interview between him and Sirius Black. So we currently don't know why he is so convinced of Black's essentially non-evil nature. [Though I do rather imagine a scene with Black telling him he let Peter be Secret Keeper and then Dumbledore looking at him and, after a long silence, saying "Please explain why you did this."] Are Dumbledore and Snape putting Harry's life in danger from PossiblyEvil!Black? Very probably. By the time Harry faces Sirius there is already some evidence that Black is actually after Pettigrew rather than Harry [*if* you know about Peter-the-rat]. Harry is still possibly in danger, though. But in PS/SS and CoS we have seen that Dumbledore is willing to let Harry fight his own fights. Dumbledore will provide Harry with back up (Snape), but he believes Harry should make his own decisions about the men who may have killed his parents. It also looks very much as if Snape believes that as well. ***Snape's genuine concussion was a (nearly disastrous) accident*** It's an old saying that no battle plan survives contact with the enemy [grin]. I think the thing that went wrong with Snape's plan was that he didn't intend to be genuinely knocked out. He expected to be attacked by Harry on his own (his comments are all aimed at Harry's pet hates, not those of Ron or Hermione), not by all three children at once. Probably his quite genuine hatred of Sirius Black and his very real desire for some revenge made him misjudge the effect he was having on the Trio. Or alternatively, between staying alive, maintaining his cover, hiding his knowledge of Peter-the-rat, pushing Harry into taking control and getting a little of his own back on Lupin and Sirius, Snape may have had just a wee bit too much on his plate. Evidence for a genuine knock-out is: Snape is bleeding in the Shack, and the cut on the head is so bad that Fudge later remarks on it (PoA p. 283). With all the effort he's put into saving Harry in previous books, it seems unlikely that Snape wouldn't have made some attempt to fight off the Dementors if he'd been capable of action (PoA p. 281 to see how close Harry came to being soul sucked). [Mind you, has Snape got a happy enough memory to be able to fight off a Dementor? [grin]]. Snape seems to know Harry nearly got killed; and how (see PoA p. 307 - Fudge knows, and Snape is the likeliest believable source). [Before anyone starts up on aha! Evil!Snape theories, this is compatible with concussion, where people usually become aware of their surroundings before they regain the ability to move.] Snape's confusion in the Hospital P.E. scene, where he seems to not remember exactly what he is and isn't supposed to know, is one of the after-effects of concussion. I noted in post # 39273 that he's pausing a lot in his earlier conversation with Fudge. [ Between trying to convince Fudge he wants Harry expelled, trying NOT to convince Fudge to expel Harry, and a nasty knock on the head, it's not really surprising ;-) ] What his plans actually were has got to be pure speculation - I would assume he hoped Harry would use Expelliarmus because a) Harry was taught the 'disarm' spell the previous year b) Harry doesn't know any other 'duelling' style spells. This spell does knock the losing wizard off their feet; it would then be very easy to fake being knocked out. He'd risk being tied up, of course, but not only has he shown considerable expertise with rope spells in this scene, he's also shown he's practiced controlling ropes without a wand. [And can you blame an ex-spy on Voldemort for being extremely practiced in both escape and capture techniques?]. A fake!unconscious Snape could have let Harry run the show but been ready to step in if help was needed. He could also, if necessary, provide a distraction at the right time to give Pettigrew an 'entirely unintentional' escape opportunity. It would also have left Snape himself with some chance of survival if Lupin and Remus had decided to finish the job they'd started at 16... Why is the knock-out a near-disaster? In post #39403 I pointed out that: In PS/SS Harry gets Dumbledore himself in a 'nick of time' rescue. In CoS Harry gets less help - he gets Fawkes and the Sorting hat. (And you're right, Marcus ;-) - Dumbledore provided them, but he didn't 'send' them - just made sure Harry knew how to get hold of help). In PoA he gets...well. If you're trying to wean a boy off expecting a miraculous helping hand, then someone like Snape, who Harry would *much* rather do without, is a pretty good choice. Harry and his friends have just unknowingly knocked out the aid Dumbledore has 'sent'. This nearly gets them all eaten by a werewolf and then killed by the Dementors - Sirius manages to save them from Lupin, but it's only some smart footwork by Dumbledore with the Time Turner that gets Harry sent back in time to save himself from the Dementors. Oh, and the knock-out also means an undeniable Pettigrew almost gets delivered to Dumbledore. Who really doesn't want him. ***Dumbledore cannot afford Black's innocence to be publicly declared*** We know Harry's protection is somehow connected with Privet Drive, and relatives - probably blood relatives. It seems to be possible to risk the occasional (non-Hogwarts) week or two away from them provided he's being babysat by other wizards - but he is unlikely to survive long living with Sirius. Sirius Black, bless his little loyal doggy heart, has proven unable to protect *himself* against Death Eater machinations, let alone Harry. Since Harry is obviously a vital part of Dumbledore's 'defeat Voldemort' plan this suggests that however much Dumbledore might believe in Black's innocence, he would have felt it more important to avoid having Harry's legal guardian insisting on removing Harry from the dreadful Dursley's. Sorry, Sirius. Dumbledore will try to make sure you're not wrongly executed or re-imprisoned, but that's as far as it goes. :-) Evidence? As discussed above, Dumbledore very unusually *doesn't* let Harry tell his side of the story. His explanation to Harry is one of his favourite 'telling only part of the truth' explanations: There is no proof for Black's story except your word; Your word isn't good enough. There is lots of eye-witness evidence against Black. I gave evidence myself. Lupin is currently unavailable. Besides, no one will believe a werewolf. Professor Snape has already given a much more believable version of events. And as the final crushing blow: Without Pettigrew there is no chance of overturning Sirius's sentence. Dumbledore carefully doesn't mention that he hasn't tried to make Fudge listen to the children; that he hasn't told Fudge he now thinks his earlier evidence was mistaken; that he doesn't seem to have made the slightest attempt to legally delay Sirius's execution; that the tag-team game between him and Snape earlier suggests strongly that they'd both discussed and approved Snape's version; and that (as he later shows) he's extremely pleased Pettigrew has escaped. [Dumbledore also avoids saying that Snape has given his version of events because of a hatred of Black, or that Snape hates Black because of the Prank.] To sum up: Dumbledore and Snape know all about Pettigrew/Scabbers. They want a 'best case scenario' outcome where Pettigrew escapes to Voldemort, but has a life-debt to Harry. Despite some accidents along the way, that's what happens. They can't afford for Black to take Harry away from his protection; instead Snape convinces the Minister for Magic of Black's guilt while Dumbledore holds his own private trial. And I have very little doubt of what would have happened if he'd decided Black was guilty... I doubt very much that Dumbledore and Snape had a plan along the lines of 'at Black's attack select option 1, unless the Shrieking Shack happens, in which case go for option 2...' More likely there were several off-stage discussions along the lines of 'what use could we make of Pettigrew?'; 'Is Black really after Harry, or was it no accident he went for Ron's bed?'; 'Harry's life is extremely important; If you're right about both Lupin and Black being servants of Voldemort, what would be the best help we could give Harry? Do you think you could outfight them both if necessary?' So when Snape rushes off towards the Shrieking Shack, he doesn't have an exact, detailed plan; but he does have a very good idea of exactly what he needs to achieve, what he needs to hide, and what he needs to let Harry do alone. And he does a pretty good job, despite the non- technical knock-out. [But I have a vision in my head, of Snape after he got back to the castle and before Black woke up, being questioned by Dumbledore about what happened to Pettigrew and replying 'With my current run of luck, he's been eaten by the werewolf!'] Pip (who thanks Eloise for the OFH, and would also like to know if this post now makes her a raving L.O.O.N.) Squeak. From Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk Mon Jun 10 23:20:59 2002 From: Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk (pamscotland) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 23:20:59 -0000 Subject: Meaning of FLINT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39663 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > Ali wrote: > >> I am 99% sure I have heard her talk about coming up with this solution in > response to a close-reading child. Am LOONily searching for the reference > now. I did hear her mention this at a reading in Glasgow a few months after the publication of Goblet of Fire. JKR, in response to a question, was explaining how there was an awful lot of background stuff that she had worked out and written down to make everything fit together but that sometimes things slipped through, like Marcus Flint who had stayed on a year too long. Pam S From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Mon Jun 10 23:44:16 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 23:44:16 -0000 Subject: Would JKR make Lupin evil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39664 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" wrote: > What would she actually be saying to us if Lupin did turn out > to *be* evil? She would be saying that the WW is right to distrust > Lupin - and by inference - we are right to distrust those Lupin > represents (be they the mentally ill, the deformed, those of > different religions or ethnic backgrounds - but more simply the > misunderstood, the different ones). > JKR's desire to show social misfits > and second class citizens as deserving of our love and/or respect > remains consistent. If this is the case, the only way that Lupin > would then turn out to be evil, would be if JKR is then trying to > say "Look, this is what happnes IF you distrust and shun social > misfits, they respond by turning against you. IMO this seems to be > a bit like over egging the pudding - when all she needs to say is, > Look! get to know these people, trust these people, and their prove > trustworthy. > > > Ali I think it is very likely that JKR is going to introduce a theme of 'prejudice causes some of its victims to turn to evil'. She's already hinted at that with Dumbledore's suggestion in GoF that the Giants have turned to Voldemort because he has promised them rights and freedom. Evil!Lupin would fit in very nicely with that theme. Especially if he *wasn't* a spy during the Secret-Keeper affair, but found his supposedly good friends James and Sirius suspected that he was; and then decided that the reason they didn't trust him was because he was a werewolf. What is the point in trying to be a 'good' werewolf if it gets you absolutely nowhere? Pippin has pointed out that Lupin's 'forgiveness' of Sirius in the Shack can be read the other way. It would be very understandable if he can never, ever, forgive the man who caused him to turn to Voldemort. JKR has already presented us with extended examples of people who do suffer from oppression and prejudice but don't give in to evil - Dobby, Hagrid. She has to balance things up to give a realistic picture. Truth is, prejudice is not just evil because of the actions of oppressors, it is also evil because of its power to create further evil in victims who would otherwise have been basically good people. Pip From christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com Mon Jun 10 23:32:05 2002 From: christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com (thesuddenstrike) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 23:32:05 -0000 Subject: Why Dunbledore and Harry are not directly related Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39665 It has been speculated that Dumbledore and Harry are related, but I believe that canon shows that they aren't. What do we know about Harry's family? His mother was a muggle-born, therefore dumbledore cannot be her father, grandfather or anything other than a very distant relation, if that. Therefore, assumbing a relationship, it must be on his fathers side. But its obious that James is not Albus's sun, their surnames are different. Therefore, if there IS a direct relationship, there must be at least one other person, a girl, James mother, between them. Now consider the durslesy's. Albus and McGonagol know what they are like, therefore I cannot believe that they would willingly leave Harry with them unless there was no other choice. Given that some of the spells of Protection require Harry's family, if there was a relationship between Albus and Harry, surely Albus could have brought Harry up himself. If we accept the relationship, and the fact that there is an unnamed girl between Albus and James, there must be other Family members out there, even if they have different surnames. Change Harry's surname and you make it harder for any Death Eaters out for revenge to find and kill him, not to mention escaping fame and big-headedness. Bring him up in a wizarding family and he will be far better prepared to face Voldemort. Therefore, Harry and Dumbledore are not related. Chris (A fitting debut to this group?) From chetah27 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 10 23:59:06 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 23:59:06 -0000 Subject: Support Your Local Werewolf (somewhat lengthy) In-Reply-To: <133.f8d5c0d.2a364447@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39666 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., sariadotia at a... wrote: > One reason I would suspect Lupin as being somewhat-evil... > During the Conversation in the shrieking shack, between Lupin and Sirius, > Lupin, says that he was not told about the switch to Peter as the secret > keeper, because Sirius suspected Lupin as being in alliance with Voldemort. > That doesn't really make sense. Why would Sirius and James suspect Lupin > over Peter? Lupin must have done something to make them suspicious. Yes, but Lupin also suspected Sirius, didn't he? *runs off to get PoA* * "Remus!" Pettigrew squeaked, turning to Lupin instead, writhing imploringly in front of him. "You don't believe this...wouldn't Sirius have told you they'd changed the plan?" "Not if he thought I was the spy, Peter" said Lupin. "I assume that's why you didn't tell me, Sirius?" he said casually over Pettigrew's head. "Forgive me, Remus," said Black. "Not at all, Padfoot, old friend," said Lupin[.] * Yep. I know there have been mentions in the book that Dumbledore knew that someone was passing Voldemort information about the Potters. This probably created some suspicions as to who it was. Sirius thought it was Lupin, Lupin thought it was Sirius, and all along it was Pettigrew. I don't know if James suspected Lupin, we have no canon to support that. But based on the LoneProtector!Sirius theories I've read, I'd go with that and say that Sirius took the secret-keeping matter into his own hands. Times were rough, and we've also heard mentioned that it was hard to know who to trust back then. I think Sirius might have let his suspicions get to him, and so he was going to take Secret-keeping onto himself, since he knew he was trustworthy- but then I guess he got what he thought was a "better" idea. > Everyone always said how week Peter was, and how he hung around his powerful, > protector like friends. So then why would they suspect Lupin and not Peter > ... and I highly doubt it was because of his werewolf secret ... they weren't > really the type to believe common bigotry, it didn't stop them from becoming > friends with Lupin. If you ask me, he must have done something odd which > tipped James and Sirius off.... Again- no canon to support that James suspected Lupin, is there? And Peter...well, I'm thinking they pitied him. And Sirius only said that stuff about him liking his big tough friends AFTER he knew what Peter was. Before then, I'm thinking he thought of Peter as a friend- he was, after all, one of the Marauders. ~Aldrea From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Tue Jun 11 00:03:37 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:03:37 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Would JKR make Lupin evil? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1713754563.20020610170337@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39667 Monday, June 10, 2002, 3:03:39 PM, alhewison wrote: a> All the posts about *evil* Lupin have scared me. I can't help feeling a> a bit suspicious of one of favourite characters - that is despite all a> the valiant attempts at *proving* Lupin's innocence. BUT, although I a> cannot back up my argument with canon I doubt whether JKR would make a> Lupin evil. I agree with everything you say... And I have full confidence that everyone in Dumbledore's "Old Crowd" has truly earned his trust. Frankly, I'm beginning to think, with due respect to all the wonderful people on this list, that all these "Is evil?" posts are largely a vent for all the boredom of waiting for Book 5... And I feel it as much as anybody -- I almost started a "Is Nearly-Headless Nick evil?" thread. :) -- Dave P.S. If it turns out that Nearly-Headless Nick *is* evil, remember, you heard it here first. :) :) From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Tue Jun 11 00:07:48 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:07:48 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Marcus FLINTs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <154005649.20020610170748@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39668 To your excellent questions regarding the _PoA_ train scene, I have one more to add: How did the dementor squeeze into the compartment, when (according to _GoF_, Ch. 31) they're 12 feet tall? -- Dave From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jun 11 01:13:06 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 01:13:06 -0000 Subject: Would JKR make Lupin evil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39669 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" wrote: > All the posts about *evil* Lupin have scared me. I can't help feeling a bit suspicious of one of favourite characters - that is despite all the valiant attempts at *proving* Lupin's innocence. BUT, although I cannot back up my argument with canon I doubt whether JKR would make Lupin evil. > > JKR has developed a world without racism as we know it - but > nevertheless full of prejudice and bigotry. Isn't she using the likes > of Lupin and the questions of full blood etc to challenge racism, stereotyping etc? JKR has allowed us, the reader to advance beyond Lupin's Wizard counterparts by allowing us - through Harry - to trust Lupin. What would she actually be saying to us if Lupin did turn out to *be* evil? She would be saying that the WW is right to distrust Lupin - and by inference - we are right to distrust those Lupin represents (be they the mentally ill, the deformed, those of different religions or ethnic backgrounds - but more simply the misunderstood, the different ones). <<<< You make a good point. But sometimes people bend over backwards to avoid prejudice and end up giving people a break on account of their background when they really don't deserve it. JKR may be trying to show us this. I have long maintained that Snape has connections to the vampires, and people have countered that it would be redundant to have two good characters in such a similar position. However, if Lupin is evil, then "Snape's a vampire" isn't so redundant after all. Pippin From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Tue Jun 11 01:34:00 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 01:34:00 -0000 Subject: Marcus FLINTs In-Reply-To: <154005649.20020610170748@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39670 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > To your excellent questions regarding the _PoA_ train scene, I have > one more to add: How did the dementor squeeze into the compartment, > when (according to _GoF_, Ch. 31) they're 12 feet tall? > > -- > Dave Perhaps they're telescopic? Either that or they don't come in standard sizes. The extra tall ones were outside the train while the shorter ones were searching it. Marcus From grega126 at aol.com Tue Jun 11 01:27:24 2002 From: grega126 at aol.com (greg_a126) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 01:27:24 -0000 Subject: What *Really* is the Purpose of Transfiguration? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39671 So far we've all read 4 Harry Potter books. Thus far, we've seen a grand total of 3 uses of Transfiguration: the Animagus Transfiguration, Cedric Diggory turning a rock into a dog during the first task, and Victor Krum partially transfiguring himself into a shark for the 2nd task. Just for comparison's sake, there were a total of 4 champions, & through the first 2 tasks they used transfiguration twice, & at least 6 different charms: a Sumoning charm, whatever charm Fleur did to make the dragon fall asleep & then a charm to put out the fire on her skirt, the Conjunctivitis Curse (which I really think is just a specific type of a charm), the Bubble-Head Charm & the charm that Harry used to get the Grindylows to leave him alone. And even in the bit of normal wizard life that we see when Harry visits the Weasleys we never see anyone use Transfiguration. We see Mrs. Weasley use tons of charms to cook & clean, but never transfiguration. If they could, why wouldn't they use Transfiguration all over the house to turn all of their old looking stuff into new looking stuff. Through 4 years of school, I've only seen the trio learn a single bit of Transfiguration I'd like to know how to do, and that's the very first one they learned. On occasion, buttons pop off & I can never find a needle, but they learn how to make one w/ a match & those are usually much easier to find. But from there, they just learn more and more useless stuff. And Professor McGonagall on the first day of the class they ever had showed them something that they may one be able to do, turn their desk into a pig. I'm not sure about anyone else out there, but really, I have never looked at my desk & thought to myself, well that's fine and good, but what I really need right now is a pig. So I guess the real purpose of the last three paragraphs is this. What really is the purpose of Transfiguration? The rest of the classes I can understand. Charms is easy enough, they're used all the time, DADA is obvious, Potions is easy to understand, Herbology helps you identify the ingredients you need to find to make your potions, History of Magic, well, "Those who don't know the past are condemmened to repeat it." But as far as I can tell, Transfiguration seems about useless. Write me back & tell me why I'm wrong. Greg From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Tue Jun 11 02:27:46 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:27:46 -0000 Subject: What *Really* is the Purpose of Transfiguration? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39672 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "greg_a126" wrote: > So far we've all read 4 Harry Potter books. Thus far, we've seen a > grand total of 3 uses of Transfiguration: the Animagus > Transfiguration, Cedric Diggory turning a rock into a dog during the > first task, and Victor Krum partially transfiguring himself into a > shark for the 2nd task. There's also Crouch, Jr. transfiguring his father's corpse into a bone and burying it. Which gives us a majorly useful purpose of Transiguration right there: getting rid of bodies (or other incriminating evidence). :-) In general, I can see how Transfiguration would be really useful any time you have an urgent need for an object, but the object isn't handy. Stuck in a desert and don't know how to apparate out? Transfigure a rock into a bucket of water. Forgot to pack a blanket on your camping trip? No problem! Can't find a pen? This bit of lint will do. The possibilities are endless. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From heidi at barefootpuppets.com Tue Jun 11 03:29:18 2002 From: heidi at barefootpuppets.com (barefootpuppets) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 03:29:18 -0000 Subject: What *Really* is the Purpose of Transfiguration? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39674 Greg writes: >>And even in the bit of normal wizard life that we see when Harry visits the Weasleys we never see anyone use Transfiguration. We see Mrs. Weasley use tons of charms to cook & clean, but never transfiguration. If they could, why wouldn't they use Transfiguration all over the house to turn all of their old looking stuff into new looking stuff. << Hmmm...this is intersting. Why don't the Weasley's just transfigure all of their stuff into newer/better stuff? The only thing I can think of is that transfiguration is very difficult magic requiring a lot of concentration, focus, and talent. It may be that the Weasley parents aren't very talented in that department. It really may take a very special hand. We know that MacGonagall is very well versed in Transfiguration, but we see so many people struggling ("Your pincushion still curls up whenever anyone comes near it with a pin" and the like). I would also surmise that they *have* to learn it for the same reason that we *have* to learn all sorts of useless trivia in school. Do I use trigonometry or calculus in my daily life? No. But, one cannot discern one's area of talent (or level of talent) without exposure to many different subjects/practices/whatever. Heidi R. From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Tue Jun 11 05:06:58 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 05:06:58 -0000 Subject: A Lone Wolf (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39675 A Lone Wolf (from PoA, Ch. 22) (to the tune of By Myself ? this song has been recorded many times. I was inspired by Judy Garland's magnificent rendition) THE SCENE: LUPIN's office. LUPIN has almost completed packing. Enter Harry, looking highly distraught. LUPIN: (smiling, pointing to the Marauder's Map) I saw you coming, HARRY: I just saw Hagrid, and he said you'd resigned. It's not true, is it? LUPIN: I'm afraid it is . (music) I'll go my way, a lone wolf, who's dancing his last dance I transform to a full-blown wolf, but students' lives I can't chance If learned that a full-grown wolf has been at Hogwarts teaching I'd be an overthrown wolf, a flock of owls would take wing I must now give you space, I'm packing up my suitcase No one knows better than a lone wolf, I'm a lone wolf alone. Snape exposed me by crying wolf, that's how my employment ends I must be a good-bye-ing wolf, no more Dark Arts Defense Full moon in the sky above puts the kibosh on my dreams I've got to resign myself before some student gets creamed It's now time to go, me and my grindylow No one knows better than a lone wolf No, no one knows better than a lone wolf Harry, I give back the Map Let's just say, "That's a wrap!" As I watch the carriage arrive And it's so long All alone ? a lone wolf ? till Book Five! Exit, as Harry give him a Standing O - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From chetah27 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 11 06:12:59 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 06:12:59 -0000 Subject: What *Really* is the Purpose of Transfiguration? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39676 Greg said: > Through 4 years of school, I've only seen the trio learn a single > bit of Transfiguration I'd like to know how to do, and that's the > very first one they learned. On occasion, buttons pop off & I can > never find a needle, but they learn how to make one w/ a match & > those are usually much easier to find. But from there, they just > learn more and more useless stuff. And Professor McGonagall on the > first day of the class they ever had showed them something that > they > may one be able to do, turn their desk into a pig. I'm not sure > about anyone else out there, but really, I have never looked at my > desk & thought to myself, well that's fine and good, but what I > really need right now is a pig. I have to agree with you there. And it seems that they deal with animals alot in Transfiguration also, eh?(could this be get them used to dealing with animals, and so prepare them a little more incase any ever decide to become Animagi?) Buttons to beetles, tea pots to turtles, porcupines to pincushions, desks to pigs... I mean, really, what use is there to turn some inanimate object into an animal(other than distracting a dragon :)? But I do have this feeling that there IS a use for it, I just have yet to see it. I think someone will come along and make a post that will so obviously say why Transfiguration is useful, I will feel the urge to slap my forehead. But, then again, perhaps it is just utterly useless and only used to strengthen the young wizards and witches magic. But to stand up for Useless!Transfiguration, I don't think it can be entirely so- Dumbledore, after all, seems to find something good about it. > Write me back & tell me why > I'm wrong. Hmm...I don't think I can. Transfiguration does seem to be pretty useless, except for the Animagi Transformation- I think that would be a great skill to have. Also, Marina has a point with the 'unable to find an object? Just use Transfiguartion!" thing. But when compared to the rest of the required clases, Tranfiguration does seem as though it's a slight waste of time. Heidi: > Hmmm...this is intersting. Why don't the Weasley's just transfigure > all of their stuff into newer/better stuff? CAN you Transfigure something old looking into something new looking? If that were true, you wouldn't have much of a division between the appearances of poor wizards and rich wizards. Thus, money wouldn't have that much of an influence, since you can transfigure things so that they look good. Hmm... ~Aldrea, who's posts now seem to pop up right after she posts them instead of taking hours to do so. From catlady at wicca.net Tue Jun 11 06:52:47 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 06:52:47 -0000 Subject: Charms (and) What *Really* is the Purpose of Transfiguration? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39677 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "aldrea279" wrote: > And it seems that they deal with animals a lot in Transfiguration > also, eh? (snip) Buttons to beetles, tea pots to turtles, > porcupines to pincushions, desks to pigs... They also turn animals into inanimate objects e.g. turning a mouse into a snuffbox for final exam in Book 1. I don't know how this is useful, but it makes me wonder about lives and souls. When they turn an animal into a thing, is that killing the animal? If not, where does its life, soul, life-force go? When turning a thing into an animal, does that mean they are creating a life? > > CAN you Transfigure something old looking into something new > looking? I would think that would be a Charm, defined as changing the appearance or behavior of something, rather than Transfiguration, defining as changing something into something else. I have some trouble determining which is which, such as I would have expected sticking wings on the keys to be a Transfiguration, but it was a Charm. > If that were true, you wouldn't have much of a division between the > appearances of poor wizards and rich wizards. Thus, money wouldn't > have that much of an influence, since you can transfigure things so > that they look good. Hmm... I was thinking about that for a long time, especially in terms of Ron's dress robes and other shabby clothing, and Hermione not Charming her hair to behave itself. I thought maybe there is something at Hogwarts (maybe something in each doorway there) that removes Charms but not the effects of Potions or Transfigurations, but the Severing Charm on those dress robes didn't get reversed (causing the lace to come back) and the Reparo Charm on Harry's glasses didn't come undone. So then I thought, maybe the wizarding folk have an ability to SEE what Charms were done, and if they see that rotten dress robes were Charmed to look new, they say even more vicious and mocking things than they would have said about the rotten dress robes anyway. JKR wants to make the wizarding world have the same problems as the Muggle world, such as poverty, and class differences (and prejudice, and bullying, and stupidity), but I think it's illogical for any "fully-qualified" wizard or witch to live in poverty. *Surely* magic can create and/or improve houses and clothing and furniture and food. At least by Transfiguring them from old dead leaves and wild mushrooms. From eeyoreandme2000 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 11 00:08:38 2002 From: eeyoreandme2000 at yahoo.com (Jessica Watkins) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:08:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPFGU]Magical Cores In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020611000838.70923.qmail@web14907.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39678 Zoe mentioned that in order to obtain a dragonheart string you would proably have to kill the dragon, but the wand that Ollivanders is talking about there is not one he made. The wands that Ollivander makes contain parts of a animals that could be "donated" without the demise of the animal. Eeyore. P.S. I am new to this group...I have been looking for a good one. Thanks for making me feel welcome. Zoe said: I have no canon to back me, but I would be VERY surprised if Ollivander were out there killing unicorns to obtain a unicorn hair. Talk about a wand for a evil wizard ... containing the hair of a unicorn that was killed for a strand of unicorn hair. More likely, I would propose, is that Ollivander visits magical forests during the time of year when unicorns shed a bit and picks up these stray In "The Weighing of the Wands" Ollivander specifically states that the unicorn that provided Cedric's wand's core "nearly gored me with his horn after I plucked his tail." So there is no killing of the unicorns. On the other hand, I can't see how to obtain a dragon's heartstring without killing it. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From Lanabana at aol.com Tue Jun 11 02:52:18 2002 From: Lanabana at aol.com (Lanabana at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:52:18 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack (VERY LONG) Message-ID: <4d.1f5cb7aa.2a36bfe2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39679 Pip, your view on this was very interesting.....but here's what i'm wondering: Why is the debt thing with pettigrew so important? you made it sound like you believed that pettigrew might turn spy for Voldemort.(or at least thats how i interpreted it) Using your theory, it is entirely possible that something dealing with pettigrew could be the *key* to destroying voldemort completely. And that, imo, works very well with your theory......I'm curious to see how you think this fits into Gof........ ~Lana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chetah27 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 11 07:23:47 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 07:23:47 -0000 Subject: Charms (and) What *Really* is the Purpose of Transfiguration? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39680 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > They also turn animals into inanimate objects e.g. turning a mouse > into a snuffbox for final exam in Book 1. I don't know how this is > useful, but it makes me wonder about lives and souls. When they turn > an animal into a thing, is that killing the animal? If not, where > does its life, soul, life-force go? When turning a thing into an > animal, does that mean they are creating a life? I've thought about that also, when they make animals from inanimate objects. Is it just poof! there's a dog that's going to act like a dog(and what about memories and such? It might not matter in smaller, more ignorant animals, but it does in dogs and such), or does the creator have any control over the creation? I've been meaning to re- read HP4, and when I get to the dragon task I'll have to see what the description was on Cedric's dog. > I would think that would be a Charm, defined as changing the > appearance or behavior of something, rather than Transfiguration, > defining as changing something into something else. I have some > trouble determining which is which, such as I would have expected > sticking wings on the keys to be a Transfiguration, but it was a > Charm. I suppose a Transfiguration is changing something into some completely new something else. Such as a mouse and snuffbox- two very different things. But with the keys, just adding wings wasn't entirely changing them. > So then I thought, maybe the wizarding folk have an ability to SEE > what Charms were done, and if they see that rotten dress robes were > Charmed to look new, they say even more vicious and mocking things > than they would have said about the rotten dress robes anyway. If they did, that'd be rather embarassing, I think. And I don't think the Reparo charm would be quite as normal as it seemed when Mr. Weasley did it to Harry's glasses. > JKR wants to make the wizarding world have the same problems as the > Muggle world, such as poverty, and class differences (and prejudice, > and bullying, and stupidity), but I think it's illogical for any > "fully-qualified" wizard or witch to live in poverty. *Surely* magic > can create and/or improve houses and clothing and furniture and food. > At least by Transfiguring them from old dead leaves and wild > mushrooms. I agree with you here. And lately I have been wondering why some of the more evil wizards haven't thought about living a life of luxury in the Muggle world. With their Alohamora charms, Avada Kedavra killings, and Invisibility cloaks and such, a wizard could probably make quite a life for themselves. But then again, if all wizards and witches can improve their houses and such, then I suppose that after that, money will begin to matter- and so I suppose though a witch or wizard would be much better off than a Muggle in poverty, they would still be in a sort of poverty- or atleast what would be considered such in the WW. ~Aldrea From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Tue Jun 11 07:40:15 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:40:15 +0100 Subject: Dementors References: <154005649.20020610170748@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <003b01c2111b$93d69ce0$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 39681 > To your excellent questions regarding the _PoA_ train scene, I have > one more to add: How did the dementor squeeze into the compartment, > when (according to _GoF_, Ch. 31) they're 12 feet tall? > > -- > Dave > At the risk of incurring the wrath of the moderators for a brief post, I think the answer is erm..... Magic Conversely it could be that they * can * actually walk through things. After all if you can steal a person's soul, is there anything you really cannot do. If they are not really * alive * walking through things is not that far-fetched. Felicia From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Tue Jun 11 08:21:07 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:21:07 -0000 Subject: Marcus FLINTs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39682 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: These answers are not necessarily built on canon. I declaim all responsability over those who decide not to read this disclaimer ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SlytherinPrefectMarcus wrote: > I am starting PoA again. I ran into a whole bunch of questions just > in chapter #5, "The Dementor," that bother me. > > #1 What is the deal with the Hogwart's Express ticket? Harry only > needs one in the first book. Do only first years need them? If so, > what purpose do they serve. (I am sure this has been asked before. > I am curious as to the concensus, if any.) We can asume, as with Harry's vault key, that it *is* there (possibly comes included in the letter anouncing the school year with the books, etc.), but that JKR is already packed too many things into the books as it is and, since it is a pretty minor detail, she just skipped it. Strangely enough, I don't remember this ever having been discussed. > #2 Trunks. Harry and Ron drop off their trunks at the mostly empty > last carriage, then hang around on the platform. They then board the > train and search for a compartment. They finally find the very last > compartment empty except for Lupin. No mention is made of trunks > between dropping them off at the carriage and the sneakoscope going > off. How did they get to the compartment? Would they have just left > little Ginny to manhandle her trunk by herself? Are there Train- > elves? (Going at this the wrong way). Yes, there must be some form of "train elf" (although not necessarily elves), since the trunks unload themselves and take themselves to the correct bedroom. Ginny could've had needed help to get his trunk up, but the twins were around to heklp her, aren't they? (like they helped Harry in the first book). I don't understand what the difficulty in getting to the compartment is. > #3 Side question. Why does Harry almost invariably arrive at the > last minute and has to take the very last compartment? There always seems to be a series of circumstances that make it be so. By experience, however, I know that people tend to look for familiarity so, even if they arrived early, they would gravitate to that last compartment. > #4 The compartment is specifically mentioned as the last one in the > carriage of the very last carriage of the train, yet later we see > that "People were chasing backward and forward past the door of their > compartment." How is that possible if it is the last compartment on > the train? Some trains have compartments and rows of seats. Since we're talking about a (modified) steam-train here, it is almost sure it is this way (I know three or four steam trains and they all had compartments and rows of seats). Since I'd imagine that people would tend to select conpartments, those rows of seats would be empy and they would be a great place to run around > #5 When Harry comes to, he finds Ron and Herminone kneeling next to > him and somebody is calling "Harry! Harry! Are you all right?" The > other people in the compartment are Ginny, Neville, and Prof. Lupin. > Yet later it seems a big mystery that Lupin knows Harry's name. Why? Why is still a mystery that everyone knows Harry's name? Is not as if he was *famous* or anything, is he? > #7 Why doesn't the Dementor extinguish Lupin's hand-flame? a) It's created by a special magic that Dementors cannot extinghuish. b) Lupin is feeding it magic continously c) Once the Dementor has made a grand entrance, he has to go out and back in before he can extinguish all lights again d)... > #8 (Later in the book) Why is Lupin's Boggart a silvery-white orb? > The moon is a sphere that is lit on one side and is in shadow on the > other. That is why it waxes and wanes. If Lupin was truly afraid of > the full moon, wouldn't the boggart take the form of an orb that is > half-lit, and half-dark? If that be the case, it would be difficult > for the students to mistake it as a crystal ball. It's a conceptualization of Lupin's fears. If he thinks abut a vaguely circular shining orb in the sky as the moon, that's exactly what he gets. I doubt the Bogart knows astronomy well enough to get it right. Oh, and the "crystal ball" was enough: I gussed Lupin was a werewolof with that clue... but than again, I'm always looking for werewolves, being the wolf I am :-) > Cheers! :) > > Marcus Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From macloudt at hotmail.com Tue Jun 11 08:49:39 2002 From: macloudt at hotmail.com (Mary Jennings) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:49:39 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Charms (and) What *Really* is the Purpose of Transfiguration? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39683 Aldrea quoted Catlady: > > JKR wants to make the wizarding world have the same problems as the > > Muggle world, such as poverty, and class differences (and >prejudice, > > and bullying, and stupidity), but I think it's illogical for any > > "fully-qualified" wizard or witch to live in poverty. *Surely* >magic > > can create and/or improve houses and clothing and furniture and >food. > > At least by Transfiguring them from old dead leaves and wild > > mushrooms. Is there proof anywhere that Transfigured objects are *permanent*? I agree that the Weasleys would Transfigure old robes into new ones and such if they could, but I think such objects have a limited Transfigured time and therefore are no good in the long run. Even Pettigrew must have changed out of his Scabbers form when he was alone in the dorm, I would think. In the cases of Animagi, it could be that staying in transformation too long makes it impossible to change back into human form. Aldrea continued: >I agree with you here. And lately I have been wondering why some of >the more evil wizards haven't thought about living a life of luxury >in the Muggle world. With their Alohamora charms, Avada Kedavra >killings, and Invisibility cloaks and such, a wizard could probably >make quite a life for themselves. > >But then again, if all wizards and witches can improve their houses >and such, then I suppose that after that, money will begin to matter- >and so I suppose though a witch or wizard would be much better off >than a Muggle in poverty, they would still be in a sort of poverty- >or atleast what would be considered such in the WW. I agree that there are enough Muggle-haters in the WW to band together to decimate the Muggle population if they really wanted to. Perhaps the WW is dependent on the Muggle world somehow, in a manner we don't know yet. The Muggle population is far greater than the Wizard population, so imagine the impact on the whole earth if the Muggle population were no more. In turn, the impact on the WW could well be tremendous. The WW may not necessarily want to admit it, but a huge changes in the Muggle world could well have possible detremental effects on their own world. Just my empty thoughts for this morning ;) Cheers, Mary Ann _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Tue Jun 11 09:03:28 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:03:28 -0000 Subject: What *Really* is the Purpose of Transfiguration? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39684 Heidi R. wrote: > Hmmm...this is intersting. Why don't the Weasley's just transfigure > all of their stuff into newer/better stuff? The only thing I can > think of is that transfiguration is very difficult magic requiring a > lot of concentration, focus, and talent. It may be that the Weasley > parents aren't very talented in that department. It really may take > a very special hand. We know that MacGonagall is very well versed in > Transfiguration, but we see so many people struggling ("Your > pincushion still curls up whenever anyone comes near it with a pin" > and the like). > > I would also surmise that they *have* to learn it for the same reason > that we *have* to learn all sorts of useless trivia in school. Do I > use trigonometry or calculus in my daily life? No. But, one cannot > discern one's area of talent (or level of talent) without exposure to > many different subjects/practices/whatever. > > Heidi R. I believe that one of the basis of transfiguration is the fact that it is not permanent: Sooner or later (depending on the amount of power you invest in it), the transfigurated thing goes back to being the original object (much in the same way the leprechaum gold dissapears). If this is the case, it's a waste of time transfigurating your tables and such into newer versions of themselves, since they may change back in the middle of the important visit (or whatever you needed them for). Charms, on the other hand, would be permanent (but you cannot change things as much with charms: no charm will change a match into a pin... I hope). This theory answers the question on the animals: if you change an animal into an object, it's soul is not gone: as long as you don't break it, the animal is still there and well, and when it changes back (at the end of the transfiguration spell), it will be able to continue with his normal life. Troubles arise when explaining the things that get turned into animals: how can this animals think? As with many other special circunstances in magic, it is probably based in the intent of the caster: the animal will act like the caster expects him to act (that way, Minerva's Table!Pig is probably a nice little rascal, very clean, that squeks in congratiating voice, and is all-around cute). Finally, if you get things wrong, the object still retains part of the capabilities of the previous object (the pin-cushion can still curl up, and so on). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From porphyria at mindspring.com Tue Jun 11 09:10:40 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria_ash) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:10:40 -0000 Subject: The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39685 Pip wrote in a lovely post: > ***The Premises***: > Snape is working to some extent undercover. > Snape wants Harry, not himself, to take control of the events in The > Shrieking Shack. > > Snape and Dumbledore know all about Pettigrew being the Secret Keeper. > Snape and Dumbledore already know Peter Pettigrew is Scabbers. > They intend to let Pettigrew escape. But after Harry has saved his > life. > > Dumbledore has *no* idea whether Sirius Black is a Voldemort > supporter or not. Snape is certain Black is guilty, hates him, and is > very suspicious of Lupin. > > Snape's genuine concussion was a (nearly disastrous) accident. > > Dumbledore cannot afford to have Black's innocence publicly declared. OK, I am impressed by this argument and for the time being I think I'm willing to believe it. I like anything involving HighlyCompetent!Snape. :-) And thank you for pointing out that he can manage an Accio with no words, no wand, and his left hand. If I think of better objections I'll add them later but for now I just have some questions about the purpose of what you call Snape's "those darn kids" performance at the end of the night. If his only goal was to convince Harry that he hated him, wasn't it a little excessive? Snape usually does a perfectly good job of convincing Harry that he hates him with a whispered threat; he doesn't need to get utterly hysterical about it. I think you might have suggested that he does it for Fudge's benefit. How does this help anyone? I agree that at the beginning of the infirmary scene Snape does a lovely job of convincing Fudge that Harry is maybe reckless (and ought to be punished) but basically good (i.e. not really colluding with Black, just Confunded). So why screw that up by a) making Fudge think Snape is unbalanced and b) putting the idea in Fudge's head that Harry might be working for the bad guys? It certainly doesn't help matters at the end of GoF when Dumbledore sincerely seeks Fudge's cooperation and Fudge is by now convinced that Snape is a freak, that Harry might be sinister after all (he's a Parseltongue for goodness sake, not to mention those hallucinations), and that Dumbledore is nuts to keep people like Snape on staff and suppress big, ugly secrets about Harry. I would say that even if convincing Fudge that Snape hates Harry is part of the plan (and I don't quite understand why it has to be), I still think Snape and Dumbledore could have come up with a less risky way of getting that across. Of course your story preserves the idea that Snape really does hate Sirius and really didn't want him to go free in the end, so maybe part of his 'act' might still be genuine. But you point out that Dumbledore laughs at this, which brings me back to my original impression that Dumbledore is actually quite sadistic towards Snape at this point, mocking him here and cruelly throwing his past in his face shortly prior to this ("my memory is as good as it ever was"). Which seems like strange behavior for two people supposedly in cahoots. But you seem to have more ideas than I do about what the point of his breakdown might be, and I'd love to hear them. ~Porphyria, who wishes to apologize in advance if this post has the same sort of formatting atrocities as my last one From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 11 09:56:02 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:56:02 -0000 Subject: The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack (VERY LONG) In-Reply-To: <4d.1f5cb7aa.2a36bfe2@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39686 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Lanabana at a... wrote: > Pip, your view on this was very interesting.....but here's what i'm wondering: > Why is the debt thing with pettigrew so important? Uh, that's something we'll find out in OoP, Book 6 or Book 7 [grin]. I dunno yet. I've noticed that with mentioning 'Snape saved Harry because James Potter saved his life' in PS/SS and the 'certain bond' between two wizards where one has saved the others life in PoA; not to mention Dumbledore's "the time may come when you will be very glad you saved Pettigrew's life." (PoA p. 311 UK hardback), JKR hasn't so much foreshadowed the life-debt thing as put up a great big flashing neon sign. One of the things we are consistently being told about Voldemort is that he doesn't understand the deep magic; the magic of love and self- sacrifice; the magic of a mother dying for her child or a wizard saving the life of someone he dislikes. It seems reasonable to me that a plan to defeat Voldemort would make heavy use of an area of magic that he's known not to understand. > you made it sound like you believed that pettigrew might turn spy > for Voldemort.(or at least thats how i interpreted it) Oops! Well, if I will write 5800 word essays... No, I don't believe Pettigrew will necessarily turn spy against Voldemort. Mind you, it is perfectly possible with what we know so far. I think it's slightly more subtle than that - Dumbledore and Snape have planted someone in Voldemort's inner circle with a known weakness, and that weakness is important in the 'defeat Voldemort' plan. In fact, I agree completely with what you say below. > Using your theory, it is > entirely possible that something dealing with pettigrew could be > the *key* to destroying voldemort completely. And that, imo, works > works very well with your theory.....I'm curious to see how you > think this fits into Gof........ > ~Lana > So am I :-) My original plan for the post was to talk about the 'I expect you to die, Mr Potter' scene in GoF as well, but I dropped that by the wayside when I realised just how LONG it would take to discuss both scenes. Especially since in 'I expect you to die, Mr Potter' Voldemort and Dumbledore-through-Harry are both using Misinformation. You've probably noticed, however, that one of the things Voldemort says about Pettigrew in GoF is: "Wormtail would have had me use any Wizard, would you not, Wormtail?" (GoF UK hardback, p. 569). So the life-debt is in operation; Wormtail is (currently unsuccessfully) trying to save the life of Harry Potter. Does Voldemort know about the life-debt? The relevant line can be read both ways. Pip From fiatincantatum at attbi.com Tue Jun 11 10:46:29 2002 From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 06:46:29 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] [HPFGU]Magical Cores In-Reply-To: <20020611000838.70923.qmail@web14907.mail.yahoo.com> References: Message-ID: <3D059CC5.7015.5275997@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 39687 On 10 Jun 2002 at 17:08, Jessica Watkins wrote: > The wands that Ollivander makes > contain parts of a animals that could be "donated" > without the demise of the animal. welllll ... no. The very first wand that Ollivander hands to Harry is: "Beechwood and dragon heartstring. Nine inches. Nice and flexible." Ollivander also says, a bit earlier in the scene, that " Every Ollivander wand has a core of powerful magical substance ... We use unicorn hairs, phoenix feathers and the heartstrings of dragons." (reference Chapter 5, the US version) Fiat, slowly working her way through LOON apprenticeship ... -- Fiat Incantatum fiatincantatum at attbi.com The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason. T. S. Eliot "Murder in the Cathedral" From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Tue Jun 11 11:04:16 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:04:16 -0000 Subject: The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack (VERY LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39688 You got a fascinating theory there, Pip. I love your analysis of Snape's actions, and, like Porphyria, I'm all for Competent!Snape. But I'm afraid that the analysis of Dumbledore falls apart for me here. You're basically suggesting that Dumbledore knew Sirius didn't betray the Potters, yet Dumbledore gave false evidence against him and allowed him to go to Azkaban for life without a trial on the basis of nothing more than a vague suspicion that the Secret-keeper switch seemed kind of dodgy? And, as a side effect, allowed the Potters' real betrayer to be posthumously hailed as a hero? That would make Dumbledore way worse than Crouch, Sr., who at least genuinely believed that Sirius was guilty. It's out of character, too: Dumbledore hates Dementors; there's no way he would hand a man over to them for life for nothing more than a suspicion. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From divaclv at aol.com Tue Jun 11 03:45:51 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 03:45:51 -0000 Subject: Marcus FLINTs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39689 Some thoughts, speculations, and random theories pulled out of my hey- HEY!... --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "prefectmarcus" wrote: > #1 What is the deal with the Hogwart's Express ticket? Harry only > needs one in the first book. Do only first years need them? If so, > what purpose do they serve. (I am sure this has been asked before. > I am curious as to the concensus, if any.) You know, I've never really thought about it. I guess I've always assumed he had one but since there wasn't much point to mentioning it in the story, they weren't. > #2 Trunks. Harry and Ron drop off their trunks at the mostly empty > last carriage, then hang around on the platform. They then board the > train and search for a compartment. They finally find the very last > compartment empty except for Lupin. No mention is made of trunks > between dropping them off at the carriage and the sneakoscope going > off. How did they get to the compartment? Would they have just left > little Ginny to manhandle her trunk by herself? Are there Train- > elves? Ummm...carry-ons, maybe? I don't recall any mention of porters or other railroad staff (there was the old guy who's supposed to keep everyone from going through the barrier at once, though), but I imagine they're around...It's a bit like the servants in Jane Austen's novels; you don't hear about them but reason indicates they exist anyway. > #3 Side question. Why does Harry almost invariably arrive at the > last minute and has to take the very last compartment? Because some people are habitually early, and some aren't. Clearly Harry's the latter ;-) > #4 The compartment is specifically mentioned as the last one in the > carriage of the very last carriage of the train, yet later we see > that "People were chasing backward and forward past the door of their > compartment." How is that possible if it is the last compartment on > the train? Two theories: 1) there's still a bit of passage past the door of their compartment--perhaps a bathroom or something similar as well. 2) It's just an expression to indicate chaos or high activity. > #5 When Harry comes to, he finds Ron and Herminone kneeling next to > him and somebody is calling "Harry! Harry! Are you all right?" The > other people in the compartment are Ginny, Neville, and Prof. Lupin. > Yet later it seems a big mystery that Lupin knows Harry's name. Why? The real question is, why would it be a mystery in the first place? Nearly everyone in the books either knows who Harry is right off hand or figures it out within two minutes of seeing him. You'd think by this point he'd be used to it... > #6 The peeling letters of "Professor" R. J. Lupin. No definitive > answer, but it is possible that only "R. J. Lupin" is > peeling. "Professor" has been added just recently and not very well. Makes sense to me... > #8 (Later in the book) Why is Lupin's Boggart a silvery-white orb? > The moon is a sphere that is lit on one side and is in shadow on the > other. That is why it waxes and wanes. If Lupin was truly afraid of > the full moon, wouldn't the boggart take the form of an orb that is > half-lit, and half-dark? If that be the case, it would be difficult > for the students to mistake it as a crystal ball. Let's see...the boggart transforms into an individual's worst fear/phobia/terror. That would seem to indicate they have some form of ESP, ie. they "see" what the person is afraid of and imitate it. Perhaps the boggart got an image from Lupin's mind of a full moon-- that is, a white round thing on a black background--and mistook it for an orb or something. As for the question of how a twelve-foot dementor squeezes into the compartment...all I can say is now I've got this image of a dementor crouching down at the knees underneath its robe, and trying to glide around eerily in such an awkward position... ~Christi From JPA30 at cam.ac.uk Tue Jun 11 10:48:31 2002 From: JPA30 at cam.ac.uk (archeaologee) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:48:31 -0000 Subject: What *Really* is the Purpose (or nature) of Transfiguration? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39690 This thread has got me wondering. How permenant is transfiguration? Animagi switch into animals, but they never really stop being wizards do they (they keep their human minds it would seem). Also the pin cusion that kept curling into a ball, that seems to suggest that it was really a hedgehog all along. The fact that Peter (the rat) stayed alive for an extended lifetime for a rat(would he have lived his normal lifespan, would he return form being a rat the same age as he became one, would he have some average of the two ages?) this seems to suggest that you remain, essentially, the same but change outer appearance\form. This would mean that a leaf transfigured into food would remain a leaf, so not nourish you.... Back to the original point. We have no evidence that transiguration is lasting. The lenth that something remains transfigured may depend on the skill of the magician, the similarity of the object, the power of the spell - whatever. As I said, Peter remained as Scabbers for years, but he may have been constantly repeating the spell\process\or even switiching back to human form every now and again. How long does the change last (it could be like Leprecaun (sp?) gold and just change back). This would definately allow there to be poor and rich people in the Wizarding World. Also this fact would heavily limit the use of transfiguartion. The keys in PS\SS couldn't be transfigured as they would switch back (although I seem to remember the chess set being - assumed - to be transfigured?). So the use of the spell would have to be short term, such as the temporary dog, or the shark head in GoF. James (who is fairly certain that there will be ten posts disproving this within the hour) From JPA30 at cam.ac.uk Tue Jun 11 11:03:09 2002 From: JPA30 at cam.ac.uk (archeaologee) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:03:09 -0000 Subject: [HPFGU]Magical Cores In-Reply-To: <3D059CC5.7015.5275997@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39691 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Fiat Incantatum" wrote: > On 10 Jun 2002 at 17:08, Jessica Watkins wrote: > > > The wands that Ollivander makes > > contain parts of a animals that could be "donated" > > without the demise of the animal. > > welllll ... no. > > The very first wand that Ollivander hands to Harry is: > > "Beechwood and dragon heartstring. Nine inches. Nice and flexible." > > Ollivander also says, a bit earlier in the scene, that " Every Ollivander > wand has a core of powerful magical substance ... We use unicorn hairs, > phoenix feathers and the heartstrings of dragons." Does anyone even know what a "Dragon Heartstring" is? I see no reason why this could not either be external, or at least non-fatal to take. Animals certainly do not 'donate' things, otherwise why would the uincorn that almost gored Ollivander for Cederic's wand-core do so. Also, even if it is fatal to take the 'heartstring' the dragon may well be dead already, and any particular dragon-heart may have any number of strings. Strange how no one gets worked up about the 'eye of newt', come *on* people, where will the newts get the money for the eye patches. James (who hopes most of his previous post is edited out as the topics he mentions were brought up by others before him - the link told him it was the last post on that topic) From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 11 12:17:19 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:17:19 -0000 Subject: The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack (Those Darn Kids) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39692 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "porphyria_ash" wrote: >> > some questions about the purpose of what you call Snape's "those > darn kids" performance at the end of the night. If his only goal > was to convince Harry that he hated him, wasn't it a little > excessive? Snape usually does a perfectly good job of convincing > Harry that he hates him with a whispered threat; he doesn't need to > get utterly hysterical about it. > I think you might have suggested that he does it for Fudge's > benefit. How does this help anyone? >> One of the problems Dumbledore has is that if Fudge sat down and applied some serious thought to 'how did Sirius Black escape?' he actually has all the pieces of the jigsaw. Hermione had to have special permission *from the Ministry* to have a Time Turner. So it's possible for Fudge to discover that Harry and Hermoine *could* be in two places at once. Fudge also knows Buckbeak mysteriously vanished earlier. Black can't apparate in or out of Hogwarts, but a hippogriff can fly... And then Hermione and Harry might be expelled (probably not imprisoned - they are under age and Confunded) for helping a wanted murderer to escape. Which would *really* ruin everything. You're right, Snape's 'those darn kids' IS a little excessive if all he wants is to do is convince people he hates Harry. He's multi- tasking again [grin]. Brits tend, on the whole, to make serious accusations with as much reasoned calm as they can force themselves into. Accusations made by someone who has lost their temper are regarded as a lot less reliable. Someone who's lost it as badly as Snape appears to in this scene is, as Fudge says, "quite unbalanced" (PoA p. 307) - and thus what Snape says is completely untrustworthy. What Snape says is also competely true. But Fudge goes away with the idea firmly planted in his brain that accusing the children is the sort of idea that would only be entertained by demented lunatics like Snape. >> > I agree that at the beginning of the infirmary scene Snape does a > lovely job So why screw that up by a) making Fudge think > Snape is unbalanced and b) putting the idea in Fudge's head that > Harry might be working for the bad guys? It certainly doesn't help > matters at the end of GoF >> Yes, Snape's performance does backfire on them a year down the line in GoF. That's why Snape and Dumbledore then give Fudge as much concrete evidence as they can, to the extent that Snape actually reveals his Dark Mark. But in this scene they're not thinking about 'a year down the line', they're thinking about the problems they have right now, and they have relatively little time to come up with something. Hermione tells us how much time there is between Snape heading towards the castle with the stretchers and Dumbledore telling them to use the time-turner - 45 minutes (PoA p. 301). 45 minutes where they also have to get the kids to a hospital bed, divert Fudge and interview Black. Snape and Dumbledore's plans were likely to have been made in a hurried series of snatched conversations and asides, followed by an awful lot of improvising. Furthermore, a highly disappointed and rather concussed Snape is really in no state to be making very fine judgement calls on the exact long-term effect he's having on Fudge. His performance gets them out of the hole they're in *right now*, and that is likely to be all he's thinking about. >> > But you point out that Dumbledore laughs at this, which brings me > back to my original impression that Dumbledore is actually quite > sadistic towards Snape at this point, mocking him here and cruelly > throwing his past in his face shortly prior to this ("my memory is > as good as it ever was"). Which seems like strange behavior for two > people supposedly in cahoots. >> Dumbledore isn't appearing to enjoy himself when he talks about what *he* remembers. The description is that he says it 'quietly' (PoA p. 287). He's telling Snape that Snape may think one thing based on his memories of Sirius Black, but Dumbledore has to make a decision based on Dumbledore's own memories. I think Dumbledore's appearing to quite enjoy himself *later* because he IS quite enjoying himself by then. Snape is giving a wonderful, extremely effective performance. He's doing it despite the fact that he's horribly disappointed at Black's escape and is convinced Black is guilty. He is, in short, showing that he trusts Dumbledore quite as much as Dumbledore trusts him - and given Snape's suspicious nature that has got to be a very good moment for Dumbledore. No wonder he can't help showing he's delighted. Pip (who wants to thank Porphyria for her compliments and hopes that her formatting problems get well soon). Squeak From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 11 12:18:53 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:18:53 -0000 Subject: Why Dunbledore and Harry are not directly related In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39693 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "thesuddenstrike" wrote: > It has been speculated that Dumbledore and Harry are related, but I > believe that canon shows that they aren't. > > What do we know about Harry's family? His mother was a muggle- born, > therefore dumbledore cannot be her father, grandfather or anything > other than a very distant relation, if that. Therefore, assumbing a > relationship, it must be on his fathers side. But its obious that > James is not Albus's sun, their surnames are different. Therefore, > if there IS a direct relationship, there must be at least one other > person, a girl, James mother, between them. > --------- First of all, we don't know that Lily Potter was born to muggle parents. Some speculate here that Petunia is a squibb and thus her hatred of the wizarding world. Dumbledore could very well be Harry's grandfather. James could have simply changed his name upon entrance to Hogwarts to ward off anyone thinking he would be shown favoritism being the son/grandson of Dumbledore (not likely, but possible). If he is related on James' mothers' side, which is very possible, we can simply assume that James' mother is dead. Dumbledore states in SS/PS that it is better for Harry to grow up away from the wizarding world, away from all the attention until he is ready. I think that growing up in the Dursley's house helped him prepare for Voldermort more through character building than growing up with a "good" family. It would be impossible for Dumbledore to raise Harry and be headmaster. His work often takes him away from Hogwarts and then Harry. Harry is safe from Voldermort, somehow, in his relations care. He is also only safe at Hogwarts when Dumbledore is there. In SS/PS, CoS, and GoF, each meeting Harry had with Voldermort/Tom, Dumbledore was gone (in London, removed from Hogwarts by the governers) or Harry was off Hogwarts grounds. I also think that Dumbledore/Harry are descendents of Gryffendor. Many of the the objects, like the door knocker and the sword, in Dumledore's office have Gryffins on them or are objects once belonging to Godric himself. When Harry pulled the sword out of the Hat in CoS, Dumbledore told him "only a TRUE Gryffindor could have done that". Was he refering to just being put into Gryffindor or that Harry was of Gryffindor's blood? Gretchen From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Tue Jun 11 13:03:30 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:03:30 -0000 Subject: The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack - shorter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39694 Pip wrote: > > One question I've been asking myself is: 'what sort of war is the > Voldemort-Potter war?' > > The answer is that it's an undercover sort of war. A terrorist war. A > modern war. > Now, I like this theory a lot, not because I necessarily agree with it, but because it provides a sort of litmus test for the vexed question of the sort of literature that HP is. My understanding is that the books are about the struggle between good and evil, so that there is a fairly clearly identifiable good and an identifiable evil. Characters who are in-between, like Fudge, are still judged in terms of the overarching framework, because 'evil flourishes when good men are silent' - to be in-between is to unwittingly aid evil. However, the Dumbledore's Dirty War theory (as in effect this is) radically redraws the boundaries. It is a lot less obvious why allegiance should be given to Dumbledore, either by Harry, or, in moral terms, by the reader. I think that if it turns out to be true, it will lay to rest forever the claim that these are childrens' books. Instead of being about the (IMO) essentially juvenile theme of choosing between good and evil, they will be about the adult (again IMO) theme of choosing the lesser of two evils, of making up your moral rules as you go along and never knowing if the outcomes justify your choices. On to the detail. > ***The Premises***: > Snape is working to some extent undercover. > Snape wants Harry, not himself, to take control of the events in The > Shrieking Shack. > > Snape and Dumbledore know all about Pettigrew being the Secret Keeper. > Snape and Dumbledore already know Peter Pettigrew is Scabbers. > They intend to let Pettigrew escape. But after Harry has saved his > life. > > Dumbledore has *no* idea whether Sirius Black is a Voldemort > supporter or not. Snape is certain Black is guilty, hates him, and is > very suspicious of Lupin. > > Snape's genuine concussion was a (nearly disastrous) accident. > > Dumbledore cannot afford to have Black's innocence publicly declared. > I see what Pip sees, but I can't help thinking that the master manipulator is not Dumbledore (aided by Snape) but JKR doing her best to make the 'face-value' story plausible - thus, e.g. Snape cuts off rat references because it ensures *JKR's* goals of having Pettigrew free, Sirius uncleared, Snape mysterious, and Harry being the actor whose decisions shape the story. And, Snape and Dumbledore seem to know about Scabbers=Pettigrew because JKR knows and manipulates their actions towards the revelation. Perhaps it's just my tendency to see oddities as FLINTy - or, to be precise, as slightly clumsy FLINT-avoidance - rather than as cross- book references. David From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 11 13:06:13 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:06:13 -0000 Subject: The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack (Dumbledores evidence) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39695 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > But I'm afraid that the analysis of Dumbledore falls apart for me > here. > > You're basically suggesting that Dumbledore knew Sirius didn't > betray the Potters, yet Dumbledore gave false evidence against him > and allowed him to go to Azkaban for life without a trial on the > basis of nothing more than a vague suspicion that the Secret-keeper > switch seemed kind of dodgy? And, as a side effect, allowed the > Potters' real betrayer to be posthumously hailed as a hero? That > would make Dumbledore way worse than Crouch, Sr., who at least > genuinely believed that Sirius was guilty. It's out of character, > too: Dumbledore hates Dementors; there's no way he would hand a man > over to them for life for nothing more than a suspicion. > > Marina > rusalka at i... Wow, this list is making me improve my writing skills [grin]. I thought I'd made it clear that Dumbledore undoubtedly did think Sirius Black was the Secret Keeper when he gave evidence against him, but rereading my post I find that I did leave it a little ambiguous. So: at the time he gave evidence Dumbledore did believe that what he was saying was the truth; that Sirius Black was the Secret Keeper and thus the only person who could have betrayed the Potters [another pointer to 'what Dumbledore says isn't necessarily true'. It might be something he *thinks* is true...]. Dumbledore did not find out that Peter Pettigrew was the Secret Keeper until several years after Sirius Black was imprisoned. He can't say 'I believed Sirius was the Secret Keeper'; because it implies he believed it *until* he spoke to Sirius. That's too close to a real lie for Dumbledore, given that he has the more honest option of telling Harry that he "gave evidence". The timing that leaves Dumbledore in the best light is that he didn't find out until Hagrid was released from Azkaban. Dumbledore would then only have had a matter of weeks to try and find out if the switch meant Black was really innocent before the Scabbers affair blew up and Black escaped anyway. Remember, I'm arguing that this is a war of cross and double-cross; betrayal and counter-betrayal. Evidence of Black's innocence CANNOT be immediately taken at face value - what if those loyal Death Eaters in Azkaban had been lied to by Voldemort to protect Black? To leave Black in a situation where he could realistically return to Dumbledore... Dumbledore is a good person. But he isn't stupid. And he's completely ruthless when he thinks it's necessary. Look at what he's put Harry through so far ;-) Pip From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Tue Jun 11 13:24:51 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:24:51 -0400 Subject: Rubeus' Serendipities Message-ID: <3C232AE1.362944EE.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39696 Nearly Brainless Connection: I was thinking about COS the other day (opportunities to read the actual *text* are rare) and realised a funny parallel. Five hundred years before, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington was almost beheaded and almost killed (in the sense that though technically dead he is still around as a ghost) Fifty years before, Hagrid's wand was almost broken (even if it's in separate pieces it still has some function) and he was almost expelled (in the sense that though technically expelled he is still around). Does it mean anything? -------------------------------- Mothers and Dragons: In 1932, the Ilfracombe Incident occurred, in which a dragon flew over a Somerset beach, requiring many Muggles (with the possible exception of Dodgy Dirk) to be memory charmed (see FB). If we accept the Lexicon chronology, Hagrid's mother Fridwulfa abandoned him and his father at about this time. Coincidence? Did the dragon carry her off, and Hagrid and his Dad then get caught in the memory-charmfest? I think Rita Skeeter implies she is still alive but does she really know? Or is there a romantic explanation: every time a giantess loses her temper, a wee baby dragon is born... ? David __________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop at Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jun 11 14:53:11 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:53:11 -0000 Subject: The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack (VERY LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39697 I find it hard to argue with a post that posits competent!Snape and acknowledges the possibility of evil!Lupin. However, I disagree with the central and unspoken premise that the situation at the beginning of PoA is identical to the situation during the Voldemort years and post-GoF. Voldemort is in exile at the beginning of PoA, far more thoroughly isolated, weakened and disgraced than Napoleon on St. Helena. Even his erstwhile followers have no more use for him. It is very unlike the terrorist war you referred to in your post, where even jailed leaders still wielded considerable power and influence from their cells, and it might make sense to plant a weakened lieutenant in their midst. Even if Dumbledore regarded Voldemort's reembodiment as ineviteable, and there is no indication of that, I find it hard to believe that he and Snape would conspire to bring it about. The fact that Voldemort used Harry's blood offers a gleam of hope but no more. It's clear that Dumbledore regards Voldemort's return as a catastrophe for the entire wizarding world. It's not something he wanted to have happen. I also don't like the idea of Harry as a puppet in the shack, manipulated into doing whatever Dumbledore and Snape have in mind. It undermines the theme of choices. Eleven year old Harry's belief that Dumbledore knows more or less everything is, IMO, as much hero-worship as anything else. In each book we see Dumbledore exercising less and less control over events. To have Snape micromanaging the end of PoA in the fashion you suggest would not be in keeping with the pattern. Pippin From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 11 17:46:35 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:46:35 -0000 Subject: The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39698 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > I find it hard to argue with a post that posits competent!Snape > and acknowledges the possibility of evil!Lupin. However, I > disagree with the central and unspoken premise that the > situation at the beginning of PoA is identical to the situation > during the Voldemort years and post-GoF. > > Voldemort is in exile at the beginning of PoA, far more thoroughly > isolated, weakened and disgraced than Napoleon on St. Helena. > Even his erstwhile followers have no more use for him. It is very > unlike the terrorist war you referred to in your post, where even > jailed leaders still wielded considerable power and influence > from their cells, and it might make sense to plant a weakened > lieutenant in their midst. Ummm....Well, I may argue in more detail against the 'erstwhile followers have no more use for him' theory at some later date; but if analysing the end of GoF takes as long as analysing the Shrieking Shack did, it's going to be a *much* later date. :-) What I will say is that I think Voldemort is lying through his teeth at the end of GoF. So is Malfoy. Malfoy is loyal to Voldemort throughout the disembodiment; he is simply not stupid enough to kill himself by letting Voldemort use his body. Briefly, I would argue that Voldemort does have at least Malfoy, and quite possibly other followers left. Malfoy's action in giving Ginny the Tom Riddle diary (CoS) is extremely effective if you consider it as a tactic in a continuing war rather than just a piece of malicious revenge. It comes incredibly close to killing Harry, closing Hogwarts and discrediting Dumbledore and Arthur Weasley - two of Voldemorts major opponents. Equally, the Death Eater march in GoF does a very good job of distracting everyone while Barty Jr's making his first escape attempt. The problem turns out to be that no one has bothered telling Barty it's part of the plan. Both the above could be sheer coincidence/Malfoy's private actions on their own; put together they look suspiciously like Voldemort is still wielding considerable power and influence as a disembodied wisp of gas [grin]. > > Even if Dumbledore regarded Voldemort's reembodiment as > ineviteable, and there is no indication of that, PoA, UK hardback p. 311 - (Harry has just told Dumbledore about Sybil Trelawney's prophecy that Voldemort will return to power) '... Harry looked at him, aghast. How could Dumbledore take this so calmly?' > I find it hard to > believe that he and Snape would conspire to bring it about. The > fact that Voldemort used Harry's blood offers a gleam of hope but > no more. It's clear that Dumbledore regards Voldemort's return > as a catastrophe for the entire wizarding world. It's not > something he wanted to have happen. OK. You are Dumbledore. You are the most powerful magician there is on the 'good' side [or the 'when-we-break-moral-rules-at-least-we- hate-doing-it' side [grin] ]. And you have only managed to hold Voldemort down to a draw. In fact, until Voldemort tries to kill Harry Potter, you're losing (see Arthur Weasley's comments in GoF, the delight of the wizards in PS/SS, the extremely harsh measures mentioned in PoA and GoF). And you cannot kill Voldemort. Even little Harry couldn't. He could blast Voldemort out of his body by deflecting the AK, but he couldn't kill him. And Voldemort is clever, and he's determined. He is going to try and gain a new body so he can make a come-back (see PS/SS). And if you can't kill him you are going to have to stop him doing that again, and again, and again - and you only have to fail once. "...it will merely take someone else who is prepared to fight what seems a losing battle next time - and if he is delayed again, and again, why, he may never return to power." (Dumbledore, PS/SS UK paperback p. 216) So what do you do, given the awful consequences of a Voldemort victory? Do you decide that you'll keep your fingers crossed and hope that you will always be able to stop him regaining his body? That there will always be someone willing to fight 'what seems a losing battle'? Or do you try and work out a way of controlling Voldemort's return, to make sure that when he does regain that body it will have some built in weaknesses that might eventually help you, or Harry Potter, or someone else in the distant future actually finish Voldemort for ever? Yes, this is a deeply risky and decidedly 'grey' tactic. But it's probably the only one offering any hope of an end to Voldemort. And what did Voldemort use to create a new body? Which area is the one where Dumbledore is most likely to receive superb advice on how to create built-in problems? What subject is Snape most expert in? Potions. > > I also don't like the idea of Harry as a puppet in the shack, > manipulated into doing whatever Dumbledore and Snape have > in mind. It undermines the theme of choices. > > Eleven year old Harry's belief that Dumbledore knows more or > less everything is, IMO, as much hero-worship as anything else. > In each book we see Dumbledore exercising less and less > control over events. To have Snape micromanaging the end of > PoA in the fashion you suggest would not be in keeping with the > pattern. > > Pippin In the shack Snape is trying to force Harry to - well, for want of a better phrase, to grow up. To make choices with possibly serious consequences. Snape's manipulation in the shack is actually aimed at forcing Harry to make his *own* choices. He never, ever suggests that Harry should save Pettigrew; in fact he takes great care to imply that he has no knowledge of Pettigrew's existence. Snape's micromanaging in the hospital scene is aimed at keeping everyone free to continue to make their own decisions - instead of being hauled off to Azkaban for helping Pettigrew and Black to escape. The fact that Dumbledore later admits he trusted Harry to make the right choice does not change the fact that Dumbledore and Snape both left Harry free to make that choice. Dumbledore is exercising less and less close control over events because, as the books continue, Harry is growing up. He has both the ability and the right to make his own decisions. He's becoming an ally, not a puppet. Pip From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Tue Jun 11 18:08:28 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:08:28 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's support in and pre-GOF (was Spying game) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39699 Pip wrote: > What I will say > is that I think Voldemort is lying through his teeth at the end of > GoF. Hm. I have always seen the biggest barrier to all these ever-so-evil theories the fact that they all left Voldemort to suffer in Albania. Ever-so-venal, yes; ever-so-ex-DE (eg Bagman), yes; ever-so- supportive in Harry's Hogwarts years: how come they didn't do anything, er, constructive? So is Malfoy. Malfoy is loyal to Voldemort throughout the > disembodiment; he is simply not stupid enough to kill himself by > letting Voldemort use his body. > > Briefly, I would argue that Voldemort does have at least Malfoy, and > quite possibly other followers left. Malfoy's action in giving Ginny > the Tom Riddle diary (CoS) is extremely effective if you consider it > as a tactic in a continuing war rather than just a piece of malicious > revenge. It comes incredibly close to killing Harry, closing Hogwarts > and discrediting Dumbledore and Arthur Weasley - two of Voldemorts > major opponents. Now I had envisaged a heart-to-heart between V and Malfoy in which Voldemort tears strips off Malfoy for his unfocussed independent action in COS. Probably after asking for his diary back. In what sense do you mean Malfoy is lying: he proclaims his loyalty - do you mean that he proclaims an ineffective loyalty when in fact he is effective in his loyalty? For whose benefit is Voldemort's performance? Unless he intends Harry to escape, what is the point of the charade? > Equally, the Death Eater march in GoF does a very good job of > distracting everyone while Barty Jr's making his first escape > attempt. The problem turns out to be that no one has bothered telling > Barty it's part of the plan. But Barty isn't escaping because of Voldemort, is he? It's independent action. Or are you saying that Voldemort's increasing strength gave Barty more strength, unknown to Barty? Even so, Barty's decision was independent, surely? There is no point to his escape attempt from Voldemort's POV. David From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Tue Jun 11 18:08:31 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:08:31 -0000 Subject: The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39700 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > OK. You are Dumbledore. You are the most powerful magician there is > on the 'good' side [or the 'when-we-break-moral-rules-at-least-we- > hate-doing-it' side [grin] ]. And you have only managed to hold > Voldemort down to a draw. In fact, until Voldemort tries to kill > Harry Potter, you're losing (see Arthur Weasley's comments in GoF, > the delight of the wizards in PS/SS, the extremely harsh measures > mentioned in PoA and GoF). > > And you cannot kill Voldemort. > > So what do you do, given the awful consequences of a Voldemort > victory? Do you decide that you'll keep your fingers crossed and hope > that you will always be able to stop him regaining his body? That > there will always be someone willing to fight 'what seems a losing > battle'? Or do you try and work out a way of controlling Voldemort's > return, to make sure that when he does regain that body it will have > some built in weaknesses that might eventually help you, or Harry > Potter, or someone else in the distant future actually finish > Voldemort for ever? > > Yes, this is a deeply risky and decidedly 'grey' tactic. But it's > probably the only one offering any hope of an end to Voldemort. > > And what did Voldemort use to create a new body? Which area is the > one where Dumbledore is most likely to receive superb advice on how > to create built-in problems? What subject is Snape most expert in? > Potions. Okay, I'm confused now. Are you arguing that the Dumbledore and Snape manipulated events at the end of PoA in order to ensure that Voldemort uses Harry's blood to resurrect himself, thus becoming potentially vulnerable? But there's no indication of a connection between the events in the Shrieking Shack and Voldemort's choice of ressurection spells. They're two unrelated variables. If Wormtail hadn't escaped, Voldemort would've either used someone else to cast the same spell, or he wouldn't have been resurrected at all. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 11 19:00:10 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 19:00:10 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's support in and pre-GOF (was Spying game) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39701 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" wrote: > Pip wrote: > > What I will say > > is that I think Voldemort is lying through his teeth at the end > > of GoF. > David replied: > Hm. I have always seen the biggest barrier to all these ever-so- > evil theories the fact that they all left Voldemort to suffer in > Albania. Arrrghhh! Not your fault David [grin]. I knew I shouldn't have mentioned this because it's going to take another long, closely argued post to prove it. :-0 > Ever-so-venal, yes; ever-so-ex-DE (eg Bagman), yes; ever-so- > supportive in Harry's Hogwarts years: how come they didn't do > anything, er, constructive? They do. You just have to look for it. Honest. But it requires a detailed analysis of the Quidditch World Cup, and the final scene in GoF, and about 10,000 words and could we agree just to wait until I have the time to do this? I promise I will try and prove this theory at a later date. [grin] > Pip writes: > > Malfoy's action in > > giving Ginny the Tom Riddle diary (CoS) is extremely effective if > > you consider it as a tactic in a continuing war rather than just > > a piece of malicious revenge. It comes incredibly close to > > killing Harry, closing Hogwarts > > and discrediting Dumbledore and Arthur Weasley - two of > > Voldemorts major opponents. > David replies: > In what sense do you mean Malfoy is lying: he proclaims his > loyalty - do you mean that he proclaims an ineffective loyalty when > in fact he is effective in his loyalty? > > For whose benefit is Voldemort's performance? Unless he intends > Harry to escape, what is the point of the charade? Voldemort does hope that Harry will not escape, but he and Malfoy are providing misinformation on the assumption that he might. Again, this is going to take a long post to prove. But by the end of GoF Harry has survived At-the-height-of his-power Voldemort, Quirrell/Voldemort, Tom Riddle/Voldemort, as well as assorted Dementors, werewolves, giant spiders, a dragon... how stupid and overconfident would you have to be to assume that *this* time, you are going to get it right and kill the brat! ;-) Pip writes: > > Equally, the Death Eater march in GoF does a very good job of > > distracting everyone while Barty Jr's making his first escape > > attempt. The problem turns out to be that no one has bothered > telling Barty it's part of the plan. David replies: > But Barty isn't escaping because of Voldemort, is he? It's > independent action. Or are you saying that Voldemort's increasing > strength gave Barty more strength, unknown to Barty? Even so, > Barty's decision was independent, surely? There is no point to his > escape attempt from Voldemort's POV. It isn't independent, he does have help (Winky) and it is planned by Voldemort. And it's going to take a lot of proving. Pip (who apologises for introducing this part of her theory before she has written the post to try and prove it, and hopes that everyone will just hold off on this until she has the time to write another very long post) From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Tue Jun 11 19:08:53 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 19:08:53 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's support in and pre-GOF (was Spying game) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39702 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > David replies: > > > In what sense do you mean Malfoy is lying: he proclaims his > > loyalty - do you mean that he proclaims an ineffective loyalty when > > in fact he is effective in his loyalty? > > > > For whose benefit is Voldemort's performance? Unless he intends > > Harry to escape, what is the point of the charade? > > Voldemort does hope that Harry will not escape, but he and Malfoy are > providing misinformation on the assumption that he might. Again, this > is going to take a long post to prove. But by the end of GoF Harry > has survived At-the-height-of his-power Voldemort, > Quirrell/Voldemort, Tom Riddle/Voldemort, as well as assorted > Dementors, werewolves, giant spiders, a dragon... how stupid and > overconfident would you have to be to assume that *this* time, you > are going to get it right and kill the brat! ;-) How about, so stupid and overconfident that you *untie the brat and give him his wand back*? Stupid and Overconfident are Voldemort's middle names, or at least they should be after his performance in GoF. His behavior there simply doesn't mesh with the behavior of someone who's carefully hedging his bets against the possibility of failure. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 11 19:15:36 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 19:15:36 -0000 Subject: The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack - shorter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39703 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" wrote: > Pip wrote: > > > > One question I've been asking myself is: 'what sort of war is the > > Voldemort-Potter war?' > > > > The answer is that it's an undercover sort of war. A terrorist war. A modern war. > > Dave replies: > Now, I like this theory a lot, not because I necessarily agree with > it, but because it provides a sort of litmus test for the vexed > question of the sort of literature that HP is. > > My understanding is that the books are about the struggle between > good and evil, so that there is a fairly clearly identifiable good > and an identifiable evil. I agree that is the impression Harry currently has (and we're being given), yes. He's still a child (growing up, but still a child) and children tend to see things in very black and white terms. JKR is hiding a very large amount of what the adults are doing and saying; as this is progressively revealed in the books we find that things are getting greyer and greyer [like Snape's nightgown - I love that!]. David writes: > Characters who are in-between, like Fudge, are still judged in > terms of the overarching framework, because 'evil flourishes when > good men are silent' - to be in-between is to unwittingly aid evil. > > However, the Dumbledore's Dirty War theory (as in effect this is) > radically redraws the boundaries. It is a lot less obvious why > allegiance should be given to Dumbledore, either by Harry, or, in > moral terms, by the reader. I think that if it turns out to be > true, it will lay to rest forever the claim that these are > childrens' books. > > Instead of being about the (IMO) essentially juvenile theme of > choosing between good and evil, they will be about the adult (again > IMO) theme of choosing the lesser of two evils, of making up your > moral rules as you go along and never knowing if the outcomes > justify your choices. Ooh, yeah, that's a really good way of putting it. I don't think the HP series are a series of childrens books (and I haven't thought so since PoA and GoF). I think they are a series that can be read and enjoyed by both children and adults, and the difference between the two types is huge. LOTR is an 'enjoyed by children and adults' book, with a surface level of an adventure story and much deeper levels asking adult questions about continuing without hope, about people having to lose the things they love in order to save them for others and so on. David writes: > I can't help thinking that the master > manipulator is not Dumbledore (aided by Snape) but JKR doing her > best to make the 'face-value' story plausible - thus, e.g. Snape > cuts off rat references because it ensures *JKR's* goals of having > Pettigrew free, Sirius uncleared, Snape mysterious, and Harry being > the actor whose decisions shape the story. And, Snape and > Dumbledore seem to knowknow about Scabbers=Pettigrew because JKR > knows and manipulates their actions towards the revelation. > actions towards the revelation. > This is where we may just have to agree that readings can differ. So, yes, JKR is the ultimate arch-manipulator behind this scene. But she has deliberately chosen to make the scene plausible in a certain way; for example by adding Snape's scream of "Don't talk about what you don't understand." when his yelling "Keep quiet you stupid girl" and shooting the sparks out of his wand would have been a perfectly plausible way to shut Hermione up. (PoA p.264 UK hardback). She chooses to make Snape goof in his mention of the rat and Pettigrew in the hospital when it would have been just as easy to have Snape say 'some fairy tale about Pettigrew being alive'. And she chooses to have Dumbledore shut Snape up when it would have been just as plausible to have one of the kids interrupting. > Perhaps it's just my tendency to see oddities as FLINTy - or, to be > precise, as slightly clumsy FLINT-avoidance - rather than as cross- > book references. > > David Again, we probably have to agree to differ here. I think that JKR's pretty-well-confirmed FLINTs to date are relatively minor errors - using sixth-year instead of fifth-year for Marcus; or 'ancestor' instead of 'descendent' about Voldemort, getting confused when reversing the order of people's deaths. IMO the evidence for cross-book referencing - the Scabbers oddities and Harry's Parseltongue in PS/SS, Hagrid's huge size being an important subplot in GoF, and my argument that Hagrid's being taken to Azkaban in CoS gives Dumbledore knowledge of Pettigrew-as-secret- keeper, is looking much stronger. But right now that is very much IMO; we won't know which FLINTs are real FLINTs until Book Seven. Pip From meboriqua at aol.com Tue Jun 11 20:14:06 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 20:14:06 -0000 Subject: Hagrid *Will* Mess Up (a bit long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39704 Hello everyone! Last night I wrote this up and it was promptly swallowed by Yahoomort. Let's hope I have more success with this post. Hagrid - I don't think he's evil now or will be at any time in the next three books. I also don't think he will be the cause of Dumbledore's death. However, I think there is evidence aplenty that he is a prime candidate for someone who will cause major problems for Harry and company. Here's why: *In SS, Hagrid is directly responsible for Harry's unpleasant confrontation with Voldemort. If Hagrid hadn't so blindly trusted a stranger in the Leaky Cauldron and fessed up about Fluffy, Quirrel and mini-Voldy would never have been waiting for Hagrid by the mirror. Hagrid has a big mouth and too much of a blind spot when it comes to "interestin' creatures". He was so eager to raise a baby dragon, he didn't stop to think about the odd circumstances of being given one. His Norbert escapades also caused Harry and friends to get in trouble, while Hagrid himself got off scot-free. *In SS again, Hagrid, while responsible for Harry in Diagon Alley, goes to get a drink when Harry goes to try on robes. Call me crazy, but a man who is supposed to be watching a ten year old boy shouldn't go off and have a drink - or two. More on this later. *In CoS Hagrid nearly gets Harry and Ron killed when he advised them to speak to Aragog. What they found was a pack of giant hairy spiders who did not have the loyalty to Hagrid that he had towards them. Harry and Ron were both injured and poor Ron developed a permanent terror of all things eight-legged. *In PoA Hagrid was ill-equipped to deal with the Buckbeak situation. Granted, he couldn't have predicted that Draco Malfoy would be such a bad student, but all teachers should be prepared for the worst scenario. As exciting as he thought it would be to introduce his students to a hippogriff, it was way too much for a first lesson. Afterwards, Hagrid was so shaken that he taught the class nothing for the rest of the term. *In PoA Hagrid is seen drunk (drinking, anyway) more than once - first when Buckbeak attacked Draco and later when Buckbeak "escaped". He shouldn't ever be drinking on the schoolgrounds of Hogwarts, especially in a position where he seems to be on call 24 hours a day. Hagrid turns to alcohol far too often. This is definitely a dangerous weakness to have. *In GoF Hagrid opens up to Rita Skeeter, even though he knows very well that she has been banned from Hogwarts and writes nothing but smut about anyone and everyone in the WW. Because of this, more slanderous things about Harry are published for all the WW to read. All in all, Hagrid has a good heart, but he does not know who to trust or when to keep his mouth shut. I know that even Dumbledore has made mistakes in the trust department, but Hagrid seems to have no sense of trustworthiness at all. His blindness for dangerous creatures also keeps him from seeing straight a good deal of the time. These things to me seem to be a recipe for disaster. Exactly how this disaster will come about I am not sure, but I feel it looming just the same. What do you all think? Is Hagrid just a loveable half-giant or a walking time bomb? I'm going with the time bomb. --jenny from ravenclaw **** From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 11 20:35:18 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 20:35:18 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39705 > Okay, I'm confused now. Are you arguing that the Dumbledore and > Snape manipulated events at the end of PoA in order to ensure that > Voldemort uses Harry's blood to resurrect himself, thus becoming > potentially vulnerable? But there's no indication of a connection > between the events in the Shrieking Shack and Voldemort's choice of > ressurection spells. They're two unrelated variables. If Wormtail > hadn't escaped, Voldemort would've either used someone else > to cast the same spell, or he wouldn't have been resurrected at all. > > Marina > rusalka at i... Again, I repeat, this is really going to take a long post to prove, but you have to work out the connection backwards, not forwards. Dumbledore carefully prevents Voldemort from getting the Philosopher's Stone, but appears to make no effort to, say, ensure that the Riddle's bodies are respectably reburied in a secret location (or cremated), or to prevent Voldemort setting up in the old family mansion. Not even though he knows exactly which village Voldemort's father grew up in, follows news about it closely enough to know all about Frank Bryce's death in the old Riddle mansion - and has a potions expert on hand to suggest a possible potion Voldemort might use. He also knows which country Voldemort is hiding in during CoS and PoA; a few carefully dropped hints about this would make any of the Death Eaters doubt that there was a realistic chance of secretly making physical contact with Voldemort in Albania after the Philosopher's Stone disaster. Owls, and other indirect means of contact, probably were possible. I believe Pettigrew was 'allowed' to make contact with Voldemort, and Voldemort was 'allowed' to return to his father's old home. Dumbledore, IMO, took every effort to make sure Voldemort didn't resurrect *until* Dumbledore had some control over the circumstances. The spell Voldemort uses requires a servant's flesh and an enemy's blood, which are both rather widely available. It also requires the bone of Voldemort's father, which is much more limited in supply and could have been destroyed. The fact that it wasn't suggests that Dumbledore was deliberately trying to make sure Voldemort only had one resurrection option open to him. Once you realise that Voldemort has used Harry for the enemy (pretty easy guess that he might well do that, especially after you've fed Voldemort-via-Harry all that guff about his mother's protection in his blood), a servant Dumbledore effectively provided, and has not been prevented from obtaining his father's body then you really, really start to wonder about that potion. Marina writes: Stupid and Overconfident are Voldemort's middle names, or at least they should be after his performance in GoF. Yup. 'his performance.' Good choice of words there. [grin]. Snape isn't the only good actor in this series. Pip (who will write that post about the end of GoF. Honest. She doesn't *need* a life. Really she doesn't) From marilyn at gtf.org Tue Jun 11 15:39:52 2002 From: marilyn at gtf.org (girl from mars) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:39:52 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack (VERY LONG) In-Reply-To: ; from foxmoth@qnet.com on Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 02:53:11PM -0000 References: Message-ID: <20020611113952.A12495@gtf.org> No: HPFGUIDX 39706 A very persuasive theory you have, pip. I read it all the way through, but now, I believe I have found a conundrum, and am befuddled. If, as you brought evidence of repeatedly, Snape does not want the kids to know about Pettigrew==Scabbers, how does he or Dumbledore expect Harry to meaningfully put Pettigrew in his life-debt? If it were not for the unfortuanate accident, and Snape simply pretended to be knocked-out, wouldn't the kids still find out about Scabbers? Did I miss something crucial, or forget it overnight? I thought the primary thesis was that the course of events was destined to lead to Harry saving Peter's life. Is Snape attempting to protect Peter while still in the SS, so that Sirius and Lupin don't kill him? Doesn't he trust Harry to save his life in that circumstance as well? -- marilyn From Cksblackbelt at cs.com Tue Jun 11 18:16:01 2002 From: Cksblackbelt at cs.com (whatismatureanyway) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:16:01 -0000 Subject: Why? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39707 I was reading some old Harry Potter reviews, of both the movie(s) and the books. The critics always seem to believe several things. A - JK Rowling writes Harry Potter for kids. B - There is little mythical depth, as one critic wrote. C - JK Rowling's idea isn't truly original, just a re-hash of older books. JK Rowling wrote the books with no particular audience in mind. There is an incredible amount of mythical depth, it's just that some people don't look deep enough. She sneaks it in, with us barely noticing. And how is JK's plot NOT original. It may follow a fairly common structure, and it may have similarities with other books, but the books are truly unique. More than anything, it's JK's mastery at weaving the plot together that entices me. Why don't people get it? "whatismatureanyway" From erectionpants at yahoo.com Tue Jun 11 21:13:30 2002 From: erectionpants at yahoo.com (catja3000) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 21:13:30 -0000 Subject: Would JKR make Lupin evil? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39708 Hi all, I've been lurking for a little bit (lovelovelove intelligent literary discussions about HP!), and now Lupin has inspired me to lose my posting virginity. I seriously doubt Lupin will turn out to be evil. His "dark secret" is his werewolfism, and while a double bluff is certainly not beyond JKR's powers (check out Aragog, for a mini-example), my gut tells me it won't happen with this character. As Ali and others have mentioned, JKR continually undermines and exposes bigotry; while I see the point that "bigotry makes people evil," her overall theme is that extending understanding to those who are different brings out the good in them. Making Lupin turn out to be a Voldemort supporter, despite any pious cants about "bigotry made him this way," will subvert that message, as his plight is so foregrounded. It's a point that should be brought up, and JKR is doing so with Hagrid's and Maxime's mission to the giants, but the overall point is one of compassion and cooperation. Also, and this is the kicker, JKR has said that Lupin was partially inspired by her mother, who died of MS. She has said she wanted to show how people react to disease, and the way that society shuns and fears those who are ill, and to express her anger about that unfairness. Without wading too far into intentional fallacy, I think it's safe to say that Lupin, whatever his recklessness in his youth, yada yada, was conceived a thoroughly good character. Apologies if y'all have already hashedthis out! Catja From kerelsen at quik.com Tue Jun 11 21:29:27 2002 From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:29:27 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hagrid *Will* Mess Up (a bit long) References: Message-ID: <002801c2118f$139320c0$4021b0d8@kerelsen> No: HPFGUIDX 39709 ----- Original Message ----- From: "jenny_ravenclaw" > > *In SS, Hagrid is directly responsible for Harry's unpleasant > confrontation with Voldemort. If Hagrid hadn't so blindly trusted a > stranger in the Leaky Cauldron and fessed up about Fluffy, Quirrel and > mini-Voldy would never have been waiting for Hagrid by the mirror. True, but... is his inclination to trust everyone something that he actually has control over or is it something that is innate in him and cannot be changed? The things we learn in COS about what it was like for him as a student at Hogwarts seems to point to it being, IMO, an inborn trait rather than something he has learned and should be able to unlearn. > Hagrid has a big mouth and too much of a blind spot when it comes to > "interestin' creatures". He was so eager to raise a baby dragon, he > didn't stop to think about the odd circumstances of being given one. > His Norbert escapades also caused Harry and friends to get in trouble, > while Hagrid himself got off scot-free. Well, while he may not have gotten punished for it by an outside authority... I'm sure that at the very least that his own conscience will be tormenting him over it... > *In SS again, Hagrid, while responsible for Harry in Diagon Alley, > goes to get a drink when Harry goes to try on robes. Call me crazy, > but a man who is supposed to be watching a ten year old boy shouldn't > go off and have a drink - or two. More on this later. I have to say that this didn't bug me as much as it could have...if Hagrid had been shown to be a parent or parental figure with experience, I'd have been bothered a LOT more. But he's not seeing Harry in that light, I think, but more like a friend to whom he's opening up the world. He feels safe in Diagon Alley, so therefore Harry should be too... It's a very childlike perception of the world. It's the mixture of innocent, trusting child in contrast to the huge, physicality that could easily hurt someone if he were inclined to do so that makes Hagrid an interesting character to me. He's got the body of an adult and the nature of a pre-adolescent. > *In CoS Hagrid nearly gets Harry and Ron killed when he advised them > to speak to Aragog. What they found was a pack of giant hairy spiders > who did not have the loyalty to Hagrid that he had towards them. > Harry and Ron were both injured and poor Ron developed a permanent > terror of all things eight-legged. Actually, Ron had the fear of spiders BEFORE this episode... this just made it worse... > *In PoA Hagrid was ill-equipped to deal with the Buckbeak situation. > Granted, he couldn't have predicted that Draco Malfoy would be such a > bad student, but all teachers should be prepared for the worst > scenario. As exciting as he thought it would be to introduce his > students to a hippogriff, it was way too much for a first lesson. > Afterwards, Hagrid was so shaken that he taught the class nothing for > the rest of the term. I feel that this is as much Dumbledore's fault as Hagrid's... He put Hagrid into the position but I never saw any real teaching support for Hagrid--he never got to practice teaching as an assistant to the former COMC teacher from what we saw, and my impression is that no one reviewed his curricula prior to the start of classes... Hagrid did bite off more than he could chew, but the person who should have been monitoring him and perhaps suggesting that they start off with something less touchy didn't do his job. It's not as if Hagrid were a qualified Wizard who had been taught how to teach... and it goes back to the fact that in a lot of ways, Hagrid has never actually grown up. He might be fifty-something years old, but IMO, his mental and emotional development stalled at Third year when his wand was broken and he was expelled from Hogwarts. I also don't really feel that Albus fought as hard as he could have when Hagrid was hauled off to Azkaban in COS. Dumbledore has clearly failed Hagrid when Hagrid needed his support... and Dumbledore should know better as he's known Hagrid for so very long. > *In PoA Hagrid is seen drunk (drinking, anyway) more than once - first > when Buckbeak attacked Draco and later when Buckbeak "escaped". He > shouldn't ever be drinking on the schoolgrounds of Hogwarts, > especially in a position where he seems to be on call 24 hours a day. > Hagrid turns to alcohol far too often. This is definitely a dangerous > weakness to have. Unfortunately, alcohol is legal and, in many places, considered a social necessity. Going to have a pint at the pub after work was part of the daily schedule for many of my friends and acquaintances when I lived in England. I didn't do alcohol, so it never became part of mine, but... Also, look at how old Hagrid is... the social stigma of alcoholism didn't really come out in the Muggle world until the 60s and it's only in very recent decades that it's become more socially acceptable to refuse alcohol at after work get togethers and social events. He's got a habit of decades' duration. It doesn't make the abuse of alcohol any less a bad thing, but we do need to consider his environment, not just currently but during the span of his life. Someplace on the web there must be a comparison of the amount of alcohol consumed by the average person of various countries... I seem to recall having read that Germany and England have a higher per capital rate of alcohol usage than the U.S. If that's true, Hagrid is just being English. > *In GoF Hagrid opens up to Rita Skeeter, even though he knows very > well that she has been banned from Hogwarts and writes nothing but > smut about anyone and everyone in the WW. Because of this, more > slanderous things about Harry are published for all the WW to read. This comes to the trust issue again... Also, does he actually KNOW that she's been banned from Hogwarts at that point? There are a lot of times when I wonder if he's being informed about things the rest of the staff seem to take as common knowledge. > All in all, Hagrid has a good heart, but he does not know who to trust > or when to keep his mouth shut. I know that even Dumbledore has made > mistakes in the trust department, but Hagrid seems to have no sense of > trustworthiness at all. His blindness for dangerous creatures also > keeps him from seeing straight a good deal of the time. These things > to me seem to be a recipe for disaster. Exactly how this disaster > will come about I am not sure, but I feel it looming just the same. Unfortunately, Hagrid and disaster do seem to be crib mates... I wish we had a better idea of what a full giant was like in regards to the trust issue. It could be his mixed heritage that is behind much of his disconnection with the real world. In a lot of ways, he reminds me of my autistic son. Matthew has no sense of innate caution. He blithely goes about trusting that everyone is nice, and that he can't get hurt by the things he does or the beings he interacts with. The idea that he could break a leg by jumping off the top of an eight-foot-high book case just never occurs to him! Maybe that's part of the reason I feel that Albus Dumbledore is as much at fault in the things that happen because of Hagrid's trusting the wrong people. I spend a LOT of my time as a parent working to teach Matt how to be careful, and in the cases where he just can't make the mental connection to caution and judgement, I have to be cautious and handle judgement issues for him. Albus, as a parental figure, seems to have ignored his responsibility for teaching Hagrid about caution and judgement. And he's also ignored his responsibility to handle those matters when Hagrid is not capable of handling them himself because of his inborn handicap. Another thought... Most of the creatures that cause trouble for the students are creatures that a being of Hagrid's size and mass can handle easily... I think that part of the recipe for disaster comes from him forgetting that not everyone is a big as he is. > What do you all think? Is Hagrid just a loveable half-giant or a > walking time bomb? I'm going with the time bomb. I think he's both... a loveable half-giant who unfortunately is a walking timebomb... But it's not something that he necessarily has any control over. Bernadette/ (who sorted into Slytherin during PMS week and Gryffindor the rest of the month!) From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Tue Jun 11 21:36:36 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 21:36:36 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39710 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > Dumbledore carefully prevents Voldemort from getting the > Philosopher's Stone, but appears to make no effort to, say, ensure > that the Riddle's bodies are respectably reburied in a secret > location (or cremated), or to prevent Voldemort setting up in the old > family mansion. Not even though he knows exactly which village > Voldemort's father grew up in, follows news about it closely enough > to know all about Frank Bryce's death in the old Riddle mansion - > and has a potions expert on hand to suggest a possible potion > Voldemort might use. > The spell Voldemort uses requires a servant's flesh and an enemy's > blood, which are both rather widely available. It also requires the > bone of Voldemort's father, which is much more limited in supply and > could have been destroyed. The fact that it wasn't suggests that > Dumbledore was deliberately trying to make sure Voldemort only had > one resurrection option open to him. That doesn't make sense to me. If Dumbledore could engineer it so that Voldemort had only one resurrection option left, then why not take that final step and remove the last option, too? That would leave Voldemort with no resurrection options at all and solve everybody's problems. (Well, except Voldemort's, obviously.) Instead, Dumbledore allows Voldemort to come back, betting that *all* of the following circumstances will be true: 1. Voldemort won't discover some other method Dumbledore doesn't know about. 2. Voldemort will not use some enemy other than Harry. 3. Voldemort will acquire "blood of the enemy" by decorously nicking Harry's arm rather than, say, slicing open his jugular. 4. Voldemort won't kill Harry as soon as the resurrection ritual is complete. 5. Voldemort, Wormtail, and all other assembled DEs will fail to kill Harry. 6. Harry will have a Portkey or some other escape device handy to help him get away. 7. After all that rigamarole, the resulting weakness in Voldemort will actually be enough to ensure his defeat. The number of random variables here is just staggering, and if any one of the above items goes wrong (and we still have no guarantee on #7), the WW is once against stuck with a sadistic invincible Dark Lord wreaking havoc. If that's Dumbledore's idea of "having control over circumstances," then I don't think "gray" is the right color for him. I'm not sure what the color for total idiocy is, but that's what I'd be painting him. > Marina writes: > Stupid and Overconfident are Voldemort's middle names, or at least > they should be after his performance in GoF. > > Yup. 'his performance.' Good choice of words there. [grin]. Snape > isn't the only good actor in this series. > Ah. I see. Voldemort was actually intelligent and realistic, and knew that Harry might very well escape, so instead of intelligently and realistically wringing the kid's neck while he's tied up, Smart!Voldy *pretends* to be stupid and overconfident, bending over backwards to give Harry every possible opportunity to escape, until he finally does. "I don't want him to think I'm smart, in case he escapes, so I'll pretend I'm stupid by letting him escape." Is there any stupid paint left in that bucket? I think I'll use it on Voldy after I'm done with Dumbledore. Marina (who wishes to make it clear that her problems with this theory do not in any way interfere with her belief in Competent!Snape) rusalka at ix.netcom.com From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Jun 11 21:39:20 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:39:20 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack (VERY LONG) Message-ID: <1a8.37b44ee.2a37c808@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39711 Gosh, Pip's been busy today! Let me first say that I like your competant!Snape evidence very, very much and if I wasn't already a Snapefan, I would be now! I'm not sure I completely go along with the theory, but I can see how much of it works very well. A few comments: > [I'm not sure if Poppy Pomfrey has been given any instructions. Her > actions are consistent either with a ferocious matron worried about > her patients or with someone who has been told to make sure the > children don't talk too much, but not let in on why.] I'm pretty sure that Madam Pomfrey is not in on anything. At the end of GoF, Dumbledore pointedly gets rid of her before revealing Sirius. I think this is particularly significant, since as the school matron, she sees an awful lot and is trusted, even by the kids, to say nothing and to ask no questions. > > later in the scene: > > Snape:" I suppose he's told you the same fairy tale he's planted in > Potter's mind? Something about a rat, and Pettigrew being alive-" > > Dumbledore: "That, indeed, is Black's story." > > *Dumbledore* has just shut *Snape* up. And, Dumbledore has carefully > moved the emphasis away from what Snape knows to what Black has said; > and by using 'story' he has implied that what Black has said is not > true. Why? > > Snape was not supposed to admit that he knows the words 'Pettigrew' > and 'rat' are connected. Note the dash at the end of Snape's line to > indicate he was going to continue the sentence. > > What Dumbledore is afraid of is that any second now Snape is going to > mention 'Animagi', or even worse, 'Scabbers'. Fudge will take > *Snape's* evidence seriously. Snape, after all, has not claimed *he* > is confunded. > > It's at this point Dumbledore is described as 'surveying Snape > closely' [as well he might; with a recent concussion our Severus can > hardly be expected to be on top form]. I'd never thought of Snape showing evidence of concussion here. You may be right in your interpretation. I'd always thought it a particularly masterful and clever piece of work by Snape, ensuring that *he* appears in the best light whilst putting down Harry in the most *sympatheitic* way. As I said recently, I'm not certain whether he believes the confunded theory or whether he's making it up; it is difficult to believe that he could *really* believe it, given that the person supposed to have performed the curse (?charm) was the only person in the room without a wand, but as I suggested, he may *want* to believe it as further evidence of Sirius' perfidy. > > The point is that neither Severus Snape or Albus Dumbledore would > have any reason to shift the conversation so deliberately away from > the word 'rat' unless they *both* knew that 'Peter-Pettigrew-is- > alive-and-he's-Scabbers'. Snape already knew this in the shack; in > the hospital we see that Snape is not working alone. He and > Dumbledore are working as a team. Sorry, Evil!Snape fans [grin]. > > How do they know? Speculation City here :-). Well, Dumbledore was > Headmaster in the Marauder's day. Lupin and Sirius may *think* > Dumbledore didn't know about their Animagus abilities but he > certainly knows a great deal about what students get up to at present- > day Hogwarts, even if he chooses to turn a blind eye (it's > interesting that he knew that James stole food from the kitchens in > his invisibility cloak). It's a very reasonable assumption that in > the two years between the Marauders learning to become Animagi and > their leaving school, Dumbledore (the ex-transfiguration teacher) > found out. > > What canon tells us is what Sirius and Remus *think* about > Dumbledore's knowledge - not what Dumbledore actually does know. Canon also tells us what Dumbledore is prepared to admit - that Sirius told him about them being Animagi that night. Although, of course, this doesn't mean he didn't already know. If he *did*, then this knocks on the head one of the pillars of the 'Dumbledore isn't as omniscient as he seems' argument (is there an acronym for that?) > > So Dumbledore probably (non-canon assumption) already knew Pettigrew > was an Animagi; when is he likely to have realised he was Scabbers? > > Again, we're off-canon here, but probably at precisely the same > moment Sirius did - when he saw the picture of Scabbers and his > missing toe in the Daily Prophet. Did he make some discreet enquiries > to try and find how long Scabbers had been with the Weasley's? Dumbledore's pretty acute. I think he might have noticed how long that rat had been being brought to Hogwarts. > > Was hiding in Hagrid's hut Pettigrew's very own idea? Or did Hagrid > deliberately find him and keep him there? Why didn't Pettigrew slip > past the Dementors before the scene in the shack? If Sirius could do > it, so could he, and leaving Hogwarts wouldn't be half as dangerous > as staying (not with Black and a mad part-kneazel to contend with). > Or did he not leave because Dumbledore was inconspicuously making > sure he *couldn't* escape. Not until he was supposed to. Now Pettigrew hiding in Hagrid's hut, I have to admit, I always found pretty odd. He was so likely to have been *found* - as he was. > > How did Snape know? Dumbledore told him. Why? Because Snape is his > loyal lieutenant, that's why. [ I can hear Cindy's screams from > here ;-) ] > > > ***They intend to let Pettigrew escape. But after Harry has saved his > life.*** > > Did Dumbledore intend to let Pettigrew escape? Well, why else are > both Snape and Dumbledore firmly avoiding the word 'rat'? [I doubt > that they're both phobic :-) ]. How fast can a rat travel? If Fudge > had sent out a search party immediately, might Pettigrew have been > recaptured? Have you ever tried to catch a rat? Catching a tame hamster which you know is somewhere in the house is hard enough! (Although an owl might do it rather efficiently, I suppose!) > > Snape, of course, was avoiding the subject of rats and Pettigrew in > the shack. Again, why is this? To make things bad for Sirius? > He very pointedly refuses to listen to any mention of the rat. It could be as you say, or merely that his prejudice against Sirius is such that he automatically disregards anything he has to say. > that's the case, why not hand Sirius over to the Dementors when he > has the chance? When asked about the Dementors he says "By the time > I came round they were heading back to their positions at the > entrances"(PoA p.284) - not 'they were nowhere to be seen.' Snape had > an excellent opportunity there to say 'excuse me, but haven't you > forgotten someone?' We've chewed over this one before. Perhaps the Dementors had *such* a shock that they just weren't coming back for more. Perhaps Snape had cooled down enough not to seek immediate personal revenge. Perhaps, suddenly finding himself in control of Sirius' inert form, he saw the opportunity for increasing his personal prestige by being the person who brought in Sirius alive (rather than merely *reporting* his kissing at the hands of the Dementors). > > > ***Dumbledore has NO idea whether Black is a Death Eater or not. > Snape is certain Black is guilty, hates him, and is very suspicious > of Lupin.*** > > Is there a listie who doesn't believe that Severus Snape hates Sirius > Black? What we don't know is *why* Snape hates Black so much. [This > is usually the point where Prank comes up and wags his tail and/or > LOLLIPOP sets sail with all flags flying. :-) ] I'll be truthful - I > don't know why Snape hates Black either. But I'm quite sure he > does. ;-) I firmly believe (sorry, those who have heard it before) that the *present* reason why Snape hates Sirius so much is precisely that he *does* think Sirius is Voldemort's spy (reminding him of his own past; zeal of the converted, and all that) and moreover that he is the spy who outwitted him in his attempts to keep the Potters safe - something even more unforgivable. ;-) David: >Pip wrote: >> >> One question I've been asking myself is: 'what sort of war is the >> Voldemort-Potter war?' >> >> The answer is that it's an undercover sort of war. A terrorist war. >>A modern war. > >Now, I like this theory a lot, not because I necessarily agree with >it, but because it provides a sort of litmus test for the vexed >question of the sort of literature that HP is. >My understanding is that the books are about the struggle between >good and evil, so that there is a fairly clearly identifiable good >and an identifiable evil. >Characters who are in-between, like Fudge, are still judged in terms >of the overarching framework, because 'evil flourishes when good men >are silent' - to be in-between is to unwittingly aid evil. Yes. Fudge *is* evil, quite seriously, whether he intends to be or not. If not consciously and personally so, he represents an institutionalised form of evil. >However, the Dumbledore's Dirty War theory (as in effect this is) >radically redraws the boundaries. It is a lot less obvious why >allegiance should be given to Dumbledore, either by Harry, or, in >moral terms, by the reader. I think that if it turns out to be true, >it will lay to rest forever the claim that these are childrens' books. >Instead of being about the (IMO) essentially juvenile theme of >choosing between good and evil, they will be about the adult (again >IMO) theme of choosing the lesser of two evils, of making up your >moral rules as you go along and never knowing if the outcomes justify >your choices. Which is exactly where Diana (see Hypothetic Alley in the Admin Files) comes in. The conflict isn't a simple one 'twixt good and evil, but between the moral and the amoral, those who see life merely in terms of self-interest and those who seek the wider good and recognise the hard decisions that must be made in its pursuit. Marina: >Pip: >> And what did Voldemort use to create a new body? Which area is the >> one where Dumbledore is most likely to receive superb advice on how >> to create built-in problems? What subject is Snape most expert in? >> Potions. >Okay, I'm confused now. Are you arguing that the Dumbledore and Snape >manipulated events at the end of PoA in order to ensure that Voldemort >uses Harry's blood to resurrect himself, thus becoming potentially >vulnerable? But there's no indication of a connection between the >events in the Shrieking Shack and Voldemort's choice of ressurection >spells. They're two unrelated variables. If Wormtail hadn't escaped, >Voldemort would've either used someone else to cast the same spell, or >he wouldn't have been resurrected at all. There's no indication of a connection, sure. But....I do find it interesting that he's resurrected via a *potion*. And I do wonder if Voldemort, believing Snape still loyal to himself, sent Wormtail to him for advice. And naturally Snape, now being on the side of right, engineered, along with Dumbledore for there to be a fatal flaw (hence the gleam of triumph, when Dumbledore realised the plot had succeeded). If Wormtail had to believe Snape's continuing loyalty to Voldemort, that in itself would be a reason for Snape to ignore Sirius' pleas to 'look at the rat'. Thinking about it, that's an interesting phrase and adds credence to Pip's hypothesis that Snape *did* know Pettigrew's animagic form. Why would merely *looking* at the rat tell Snape anything? (He could dismiss the missing digit as easily as Ron). Perhaps Lupin isn't the only one who's failed to mention to Dumbledore that the Marauders were Animagi. Perhaps James *did* rescue Snape as Prongs and this is why Snape can dismiss his heroism so easily (and he's not likely to admit to Harry that his dad was an Animagus). Snape knowing doesn't necessarily mean that Dumbledore does. I personally think that though they trust each other, they *both* play their cards close to their chests (witness Snape's repeated efforts to go it alone, apparently without involving Dumbledore). As Pip points out, information is being shared strictly on a 'need to know' basis. Eloise Who meant to say last time how thrilled she is that Marina has honoured the OFH with its very own FILK, which will now be sung at every meeting . :-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jun 11 21:46:35 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 21:46:35 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39712 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > > Again, I repeat, this is really going to take a long post to prove, > but you have to work out the connection backwards, not forwards. > > Dumbledore carefully prevents Voldemort from getting the > Philosopher's Stone, but appears to make no effort to, say, ensure that the Riddle's bodies are respectably reburied in a secret location (or cremated), or to prevent Voldemort setting up in the old family mansion. << This all assumes that Dumbledore has exact knowledge of the spell Voldemort is going to use to accomplish his rebirthing. Are you assuming Voldemort knew he was going to need this knowledge and got it from Snape *before* the Potter catastrophe? Or that Snape somehow fed him the knowledge afterwards? It also seems from what Cedric says about taking his body back to his parents that interference with a corpse or a resting place violates wizarding taboos and may be magically dangerous. Consider the curses on the tombs mentioned in PoA. Dumbledore might be extremely reluctant to interfere with even a Muggle burial. And why assume that cremation would remove whatever magical properties the "bone of the father" contains? It would also seem that Dumbledore's ability to keep watch over non-magical places is limited, since he says that his information about Frank Bryce came from the Muggle newspapers. According to your scenario, which rather turns the series into a LeCarre style spy novel, what happens to doing what is right rather than what is easy? If Dumbledore is willing to do whatever is necessary to win, rather than whatever is necessary to lead a moral life, then there's no difference between him and Crouch or Fudge. That was LeCarre's point, but I don't think it's JKR's. I also can't see Voldemort allowing Lucius to use the diary. I think Lucius didn't dare use the diary until after PS/SS because up until then he wasn't sure what had happened to Voldemort. It wouldn't have been safe for Lucius to conspire with young Riddle until he was very very sure that the mature Dark Lord was out of the way...the last thing Voldemort would want is "another dark lord competing with him." Pippin agreeing with David that it can all be made to seem contrived because JKR is contriving it, and disagreeing that a battle between good and evil is only suitable for children's books. From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Tue Jun 11 22:21:32 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 22:21:32 -0000 Subject: Problems with "The Spying Game" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39713 It is a great theory at first blush, but it just doesn't have legs, I am afraid. It first establishes that Snape wants to "Shut Lupin Up" about the Rat, and then he wants to provoke Harry into zapping him so he can pretend to be knocked out. Are we to suppose that Lupin won't then continue to tell his story? If Snape wishes to establish plausible deniability, wouldn't it be smarter just to remain cloaked? Nobody knows he is there. They have all forgotten about the opening door. Why should he throw away an advantage like that? Be honest, would the outcome been any different if Snape had not revealed himself? Lupin and Black would still have forced Peter to reveal himself. They would have still wanted to kill him. Harry would still have intervened. So how does revealing himself help further his supposed desire to free Petigrew and having Peter have a life-debt to Harry? Snape could have silently watched the whole thing, perhaps only revealing himself when the Dementors started to swarm. He might have even done some stealthy magic while invisible to influence events. As to deliberately provoking Harry, when does Snape NOT deliberately provoke Harry? He always does his level best to goad Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Neville. Why should the S. Shack be any different? As to why he binds and gags Lupin and not Black, Lupin has the wand. Also, Lupin is a fully functional wizard, Black is a little rusty. You also have Snape just hoping that Black sneezes wrong so he can be justified in blasting him into the headless hunt. You can't make any untoward movements when you are bound and gagged. As to failing to anticipate HHR's reaction, he is a teacher. He has been bullying these three for three years. Why should he expect that finally now they will blast him? As to telling Hermione to shut-up, he is always telling her to shut-up. Now, as to why he binds Black to a stretcher instead of calling back the dementors, he is just recovering from a concusion. Would you want to summon over a hundred dementors to hover around you if you could avoid it? Besides, he isn't thinking clearly, he is no longer angry, and he might of just seen a dementor try to kiss Harry. Why should he think they won't attempt to kiss him? Now to Dumbledore sending him and Fudge out, how else would you expect Dumbledore to act? MacNair is going to show up any second now with the dementor. Harry's and Hermione's story are less believable than Snape's. There is no proof of it. And Dumbledore needs Snape's trust. What is he supposed to do? Insist on hearing Harry out, try to overcome Fudge's objections, and possibly alienate Snape by taking H&H's side against him in front of the Minister of Magic? That course of action is not going to be resolved quickly. There simply is no time. Face it, Snape is a mean, ugly shnook. He is not pretending. Perhaps we need the acroynm SIAMUS. :) Marcus From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Tue Jun 11 23:27:23 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 00:27:23 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack (VERY LONG) References: <1a8.37b44ee.2a37c808@aol.com> Message-ID: <01be01c2119f$8c650c60$75c87ad5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 39714 Gods, I could read about competent!Snape all day long. :-) > > > that's the case, why not hand Sirius over to the Dementors when he > > has the chance? When asked about the Dementors he says "By the time > > I came round they were heading back to their positions at the > > entrances"(PoA p.284) - not 'they were nowhere to be seen.' Snape had > > an excellent opportunity there to say 'excuse me, but haven't you > > forgotten someone?' > > We've chewed over this one before. Perhaps the Dementors had *such* a shock > that they just weren't coming back for more. Perhaps Snape had cooled down > enough not to seek immediate personal revenge. Perhaps, suddenly finding > himself in control of Sirius' inert form, he saw the opportunity for > increasing his personal prestige by being the person who brought in Sirius > alive (rather than merely *reporting* his kissing at the hands of the > Dementors). Great, now I have a piece of material evidence for that gut feeling I had all along - Snape never intended to feed Sirius to dementors. When he says "I don't think we need to go that far", he is bluffing - he wants Sirius to beg for his life. (But even that little satisfaction is denied to poor man ;) I think that if Snape was to look into the mirror of Erised, he would see Dumledore saying: "Severus, you were right about Black all along, I'm sorry". By bringing him to the castle alive, he'd get that wish and probably Black will even witness it - much greater satisfaction than killing Black on the spot. If that explanation is too romantic, then maybe it's just Dumbledore sending his beloved golden boy to dementors has more sadistic pleasure potential that doing it by himself. > > Is there a listie who doesn't believe that Severus Snape hates Sirius > > Black? What we don't know is *why* Snape hates Black so much. > [This > > is usually the point where Prank comes up and wags his tail and/or > > LOLLIPOP sets sail with all flags flying. :-) ] Getting the Occam's Razor out - yes, Prank is reason enough for me. :-) I don't buy this line of reasoning that Snape could only charge his curiosity with attempted murder. To quote someone from the last time it came up: "Sirius only supplied information, he did not force Snape to act on it". Sure. That's what Iago said when St. Peter was throwing him to hell. ;-) Irene From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jun 11 23:22:27 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:22:27 -0000 Subject: Not Prongs was Re: The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack (VERY LONG) In-Reply-To: <1a8.37b44ee.2a37c808@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39715 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: >>> Perhaps James *did* rescue Snape as Prongs and this is why Snape can dismiss his heroism so easily (and he's not likely to admit to Harry that his dad was an Animagus).<< There's no room for a full grown stag to negotiate the tunnel to the shack. It's a "very low tunnel" PoA Ch. 17, and Harry has to walk along it "bent-backed" and "bent almost double." A stag, particularly one with a handsome rack of antlers (Prongs, you know) would never manage it. I always imagine James effecting the rescue on his broomstick, racing through the tunnel in the dark at breakneck speed. Pippin From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Tue Jun 11 23:35:58 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 00:35:58 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Problems with "The Spying Game" References: Message-ID: <01c401c211a0$be53d5c0$75c87ad5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 39716 prefectmarcus wrote: > Now, as to why he binds Black to a stretcher instead of calling back > the dementors, he is just recovering from a concusion. Would you > want to summon over a hundred dementors to hover around you if you > could avoid it? Besides, he isn't thinking clearly, he is no longer > angry, and he might of just seen a dementor try to kiss Harry. Why > should he think they won't attempt to kiss him? Hm, if in your theory he is no longer angry at that point, I'd hate to see him angry. :-) Nope, even sticking to the mean shnook interpretation - there are more brownie points to be earned from bringing Black alive. Now stretcher is an interesting detail - if the ever so noble Sirius and Remus bothered with it in low tunnel instead of repeatedly hitting unconscious man, they would be able to move faster and maybe could make it to Hogwarts on time. Not that it would do Sirius much good - if Fudge was not interested enough to listen to Crouch's story, do you think he would bother with Sirius? (Anyone bold enough to construct "Snape actually saved Sirius's life that night" theory? ;) Irene From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com Wed Jun 12 00:50:48 2002 From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:50:48 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What *Really* is the Purpose (or nature) of Transfiguration? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39717 James said: >>Animagi switch into animals, but they never really stop being wizards do they (they keep their human minds it would seem). >>The fact that Peter (the rat) stayed alive for an extended lifetime for a rat(would he have lived his normal lifespan, would he return form being a rat the same age as he became one, would he have some average of the two ages?) this seems to suggest that you remain, essentially, the same but change outer appearance\form. I agree with this -- if wizards actually ended up with the mind of whatever they changed into, then they'd never change back because they'd only be animals and no longer wizards. Without the human intelligence there is no magic (unless someone can have a magical being or creature form like a unicorn, but so far no one seems to do that) James said: >>This would mean that a leaf transfigured into food would remain a leaf, so not nourish you.... This makes sense too, though if the thing really becomes whatever it's changed into wouldn't it still be nourishing? One thought I had is that most of the transfigurations seem to be from a living thing to a non-living thing or vice versa (IIRC). There was the match to the needle, but most involve life. If creating new robes meant transfiguring living animals into clothing, would people really do it? I'm sure some would but I doubt the Weasleys would since they seem the type to care about that sort of thing. What about transfiguring mice into steak dinners? If they still had a soul. . . creepy thought. The theory that transfiguration is actually one of the more difficult forms of magic may be one of the most reasonable ones. Most of the things the students transfigure seem to be fairly small (I can't remember how big the dog is though). It could be that the larger or more complicated transformations are a lot harder to do the same way that complicated potions are difficult -- few have the skill or patience to become really good at anything more than small scale things. It's possible that rings or something could be created, but clothing is too complex. Also, if transfiguration was easy then people would simply turn rocks into gold and be done with it. The philosopher's stone was able to turn things into gold IIRC but it was created by one of the best alchemists so I doubt just anyone could do it. Actually, I just had a thought (pure speculation happening here) -- some of the other disciplines (potions and herbology) are based on logical or scientific processes to some extent to get the proper result. What if Transfiguration is the same? If people have to understand (to some degree anyway) the interactions between items on more of a molecular level? Matches to pins can be done because they're a similar shape and young minds can make the intuitive jump to switch them but more difficult things need a more scientific approach. Things like rock to gold might simply be too complex for most minds to comprehend (like seriously advanced maths and sciences). Another option is -- what if things have to be of like size? match=needle, hedgehog=pincusion etc. To make a bolt of fabric to make clothing from, or even something robe sized might simply be too hard or irritating to find. What would you use for your yards/metres of fabric -- sod? Something robe sized like what? A sheep? Cow? That would be odd (and annoying to the farmers with the missing livestock ;)) Oh, and since it's obvious that an animagus needs to keep his/her intelligence when transforming so that they can change back, can the same be said for people transfigured by others like Draco-Ferret? An interesting thought there. I don't know if I agree with the idea of a time limit though. The chess set in PS/SS was transfigured and I doubt that McGonagall crept past everyone elses traps to retransfigure the chess set numerous times a day. (I wonder what it ~used~ to be before it was a huge game of wizard's chess?) Well, I think I've babbled on long enough -- hope some of this makes sense. --- --Hana (who should really stop thinking out loud when posting) _______________________________________________________ WIN a first class trip to Hawaii. Live like the King of Rock and Roll on the big Island. Enter Now! http://r.lycos.com/r/sagel_mail/http://www.elvis.lycos.com/sweepstakes From porphyria at mindspring.com Wed Jun 12 01:23:49 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria_ash) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:23:49 -0000 Subject: "The Spying Game" problems and some Destiny vs. Choice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39718 Since Pip (who must be exhausted by now) hasn't answered Marcus yet, I'm going to give it a shot based on her theory. Pip, if I'm misrepresenting you here, please forgive me! Also, I argue some additional points at the end of this post. Marcus argued: > It first establishes that Snape wants to "Shut Lupin Up" about the > Rat, and then he wants to provoke Harry into zapping him so he can > pretend to be knocked out. Are we to suppose that Lupin won't then > continue to tell his story? I understood from Pip's account that Snape only wanted to avoid letting anyone think that *he* knew that Peter was the rat; of course he wanted Harry to be told the story. > If Snape wishes to establish plausible > deniability, wouldn't it be smarter just to remain cloaked? Nobody > knows he is there. They have all forgotten about the opening door. > Why should he throw away an advantage like that? > > Be honest, would the outcome been any different if Snape had not > revealed himself? Lupin and Black would still have forced Peter to > reveal himself. They would have still wanted to kill him. Harry > would still have intervened. So how does revealing himself help > further his supposed desire to free Petigrew and having Peter have a > life-debt to Harry? Snape could have silently watched the whole > thing, perhaps only revealing himself when the Dementors started to > swarm. He might have even done some stealthy magic while invisible > to influence events. If I understand Pip's version of events correctly, Dumbledore needed 1) Peter to escape back to Voldemort and 2) for Sirius to not be properly exonerated because he couldn't provide Harry the kind of magical protection available at the Dursleys. Putting aside for the time being the issue of whether this is far-fetched (VBG, but I still like this theory), lets think about what would have happened if Snape had not intervened at all. It would have been quite likely that they would have managed to do what Harry intended in the end: the whole party would have made it back to the castle with Peter alive and in rat form, they would have demonstrated his animagus quality to Fudge, and possibly he would have been incarcerated and Sirius set free. Possibly. But it was a possibility that Dumbledore didn't want to take according to Pip's theory. So if I understand this correctly, part of Snape's job would have been to mess stuff up, sabotage the situation so that LifeDebt!Peter could have escaped by what looked like an accident. Since Snape probably knew that Lupin would eventually change into a werewolf, perhaps he thought that he needed to decloak in order to stall the situation even further. That way when Lupin finally transformed, Snape could just happen to "wake up," do something to immobilize Lupin and "accidentally" let Peter escape in the confusion. What I like about Pip's theory is that it actually does provide for the possibility that Snape was improvising as he went along, that he did encounter unforseen glitches (like getting knocked out for real), and that part of his motivation was real hatred towards Sirius and Lupin. This alone could account for his making an appearance in the shack when he also could have watched and waited some more. Also, if Snape were trying to establish plausible deniability then he couldn't have eavesdropped the whole time and then only decloaked when danger struck; that would have looked much fishier. He would have had to reveal himself right before Lupin said "Peter is a rat animagus" and then get knocked out. I still think this fits Pip's argument. Marcus again: > As to deliberately provoking Harry, when does Snape NOT deliberately > provoke Harry? He always does his level best to goad Harry, Ron, > Hermione, and Neville. Why should the S. Shack be any different? Regardless of what Snape has in mind, his provoking of Harry always does have the same function: it makes Harry more stubborn, more uppity, more single-minded and tougher. It works here just as well as it works the rest of the time. I've snipped a little of Marcus's argument; I feel that there is room for more than one coherent interpretation of these events which is what makes it fun to discuss. Marcus concludes: > Face it, Snape is a mean, ugly shnook. He is not pretending. > > Perhaps we need the acroynm SIAMUS. :) Nothing in Pip's theory conflicts with this. She never argues that he's really a warm, fuzzy, sentimental type who just *wuvs* darling Harry to death. I have no problem in assuming that Snape is basically a nasty, sarcastic, mean-spirited, bitter, irascible misanthrope, but that he can ham up his usual personality if he needs to make a dramatic or rhetorical point. I'm quite sure he does it often, if not here, then in plenty of other places in the text. ---- Some other discussion. Pip says, of the Dementors: > ...why not hand Sirius over to the Dementors when he > has the chance? When asked about the Dementors he says "By the time > I came round they were heading back to their positions at the > entrances"(PoA p.284) - not 'they were nowhere to be seen.' Snape had > an excellent opportunity there to say 'excuse me, but haven't you > forgotten someone?' Eloise replied: > I firmly believe (sorry, those who have heard it before) that the *present* > reason why Snape hates Sirius so much is precisely that he *does* think > Sirius is Voldemort's spy (reminding him of his own past; zeal of the > converted, and all that) and moreover that he is the spy who outwitted him in > his attempts to keep the Potters safe - something even more unforgivable. ;-) Remember these can both work. Pip has suggested that perhaps Snape thought Peter and Sirius were *both* traitors to the Potters and that their eventual spat was simply a double-cross among crooks. Also, if Snape really does realize that Sirius was innocent, he might still resent him for switching secret-keepers. If you're inclined to dislike someone, it's easy to come up with reasons to do so. I too believe that Snape was traumatized over the deaths of the Potters (more than the Prank); not necessarily because he was in love with either of them, but because he might have felt that saving them was his ticket to redemption for having been a real DE, and when it fell through he was stuck with his guilty conscience and no way to make up for it. On the subject of choices, Pippin remarked: > I also don't like the idea of Harry as a puppet in the shack, > manipulated into doing whatever Dumbledore and Snape have > in mind. It undermines the theme of choices. Pip has already defended herself on this count, arguing correctly that none of this in any way prevents Harry from having a free choice in the matter. However, this topic interests me, so I thought I'd say some more about it. Just to hammer in the point, it is a fact that Snape says very provoking things to Harry in the Shack, acts like he will refuse to listen to reason, and Harry makes the choice to disarm him. This is Harry's choice whether Snape was deliberately goading him or just being his usual nasty self. It doesn't matter; Harry is still making a choice. Likewise, it is Harry's choice to spare Peter's life. It doesn't matter that James would have done the same thing, or that Dumbledore suspected Harry would make this choice. It was still Harry's choice to make. This issue interests me because it intersects some of what I encountered when I wrote my Job essay (shameless plug!). In the Book of Job, Job finds himself in the middle of a cosmic conspiracy which puts him into an impossible situation in order for the powers that be to work out their theology of blessedness and grace. Despite this, Job still acquits himself on account of the choices he makes under duress. Harry is in much the same situation with Dumbledore (and Snape). The end of PS/SS makes this explicit: Harry suspects that Dumbledore has set him up: letting him see Hagrid withdraw the package from the bank, giving him the invisibility cloak, letting him see the Mirror of Erised, expressing joy that he'd figured out who Nicolas Flamel was. None of this dilutes the fact that Harry made his own choices in the situation; his heroism and courage remains the same whether he's right or wrong about what Dumbledore wanted him to do. The HP series walks a provoking, paradoxical line between the themes of predestination and free choice. On one hand Harry does seem like he's the chosen one who will be the hero to defeat Voldemort. We see predestination in Voldemort's wand's twin choosing Harry, the hints that Harry might be the heir of Gryffindor, the continuing mystery around exactly why Harry dispelled LV in the first place (for those who don't completely buy the mother-love theory), Harry's seemingly innate heroic gifts like being able to resist an Imperius curse or fly a broom like a pro. On the other hand, we have the theme of making choices, explicitly stated in CoS, and acted on afterwards. This is also where we find the issue of legacy, which we've discussed at length. Some younger characters seem to be carbon copies of their fathers, some don't, and Harry is somewhere in between. So destiny and choice seem to be at war in the series, and I think this is perfectly reflected in Pip's theory: that Harry is both a pawn *and* has free will that he uses to its full advantage. ~Porphyria, who at least thinks Pip's theory deserves an acronym From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com Wed Jun 12 01:49:05 2002 From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:49:05 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemorts Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39719 I have to agree with Marina on this one. Unless Dumbledore has a plan to kill Voldemort permanently that meant Voldemort ~had~ to be resurrected first, I don't see why he'd risk the WW's greatest hope on the off chance that the Dark Lord was arrogant (read dumb) enough to let Harry escape. The most likely scenerio to me would be that Dumbledore didn't know the exact potion/method that Voldemort was going to use, or when he was going to use it and that's why he didn't do anything to stop it. Somehow I think that if Dumbledore was manipulative enough to put Harry in ~that~ much danger deliberately he would lose a lot of supporters if it ever became public knowledge. It is stressing the ends ~a lot~ more than the means and, while sacrifices may be necessary, it seems pretty extreme to risk sacrificing Harry this early into the game. Just my two knuts. --- --Hana _______________________________________________________ WIN a first class trip to Hawaii. Live like the King of Rock and Roll on the big Island. Enter Now! http://r.lycos.com/r/sagel_mail/http://www.elvis.lycos.com/sweepstakes From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Wed Jun 12 02:04:17 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 02:04:17 -0000 Subject: "The Spying Game" problems and some Destiny vs. Choice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39720 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "porphyria_ash" wrote: > Since Pip (who must be exhausted by now) hasn't answered Marcus yet, > I'm going to give it a shot based on her theory. Pip, if I'm > misrepresenting you here, please forgive me! Also, I argue some > additional points at the end of this post. > > > If I understand Pip's version of events correctly, Dumbledore needed > 1) Peter to escape back to Voldemort and 2) for Sirius to not be > properly exonerated because he couldn't provide Harry the kind of > magical protection available at the Dursleys. Putting aside for the > time being the issue of whether this is far-fetched (VBG, but I still > like this theory), lets think about what would have happened if Snape > had not intervened at all. It would have been quite likely that they > would have managed to do what Harry intended in the end: the whole > party would have made it back to the castle with Peter alive and in > rat form, they would have demonstrated his animagus quality to Fudge, > and possibly he would have been incarcerated and Sirius set free. > Possibly. But it was a possibility that Dumbledore didn't want to > take according to Pip's theory. Snape is only awake for four pages out of more than forty from the time the Harry and Herminone meet Black to Lupin's transformation. So he only managed to slow things down 10% at the very most. Now how much more could a competent!Snape do while cloaked? If push came to shove, he could always decloak back at Hogwarts' park. Everybody would assume he had been waiting for them or had just come on the scene, and nobody would be the wiser. If Snape was trying to control events, why would Snape and Dumbledore want to choose Pip's scenario rather than the one I just laid out? > > Marcus again: > > > As to deliberately provoking Harry, when does Snape NOT deliberately > > provoke Harry? He always does his level best to goad Harry, Ron, > > Hermione, and Neville. Why should the S. Shack be any different? > > Regardless of what Snape has in mind, his provoking of Harry always > does have the same function: it makes Harry more stubborn, more > uppity, more single-minded and tougher. It works here just as well as > it works the rest of the time. Yes, but why should he count on his poking and prodding to provoke Harry to attack now when it hasn't before? You cannot argue that his antagonizing HHR is a sign of his true mission because that is how he always treats them. > ~Porphyria, who at least thinks Pip's theory deserves an acronym If Dumbledore and Snape had the goals as outlined by Pip, there are far simplier ways to accomplish them, or at least more controlled ways. When Dumbledore allowed a first year to face down Voldemort and his minion, it was in a Hogwart's dungeon. Why not a similar situation? Marcus From porphyria at mindspring.com Wed Jun 12 02:44:37 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria_ash) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 02:44:37 -0000 Subject: "The Spying Game" problems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39721 I defended Pip's version of events by suggesting that Snape was trying to sabotage the events in the Shack in order to let Peter escape by accident (what I believe Pip has said): >...lets think about what would have happened if Snape >had not intervened at all. It would have been quite likely that they >would have managed to do what Harry intended in the end: the whole >party would have made it back to the castle with Peter alive and in >rat form, they would have demonstrated his animagus quality to Fudge, >and possibly he would have been incarcerated and Sirius set free. >Possibly. But it was a possibility that Dumbledore didn't want to >take according to Pip's theory. Marcus replied: > Snape is only awake for four pages out of more than forty from the > time the Harry and Herminone meet Black to Lupin's transformation. > So he only managed to slow things down 10% at the very most. Now how > much more could a competent!Snape do while cloaked? Well, if he hadn't been knocked out for real, a lot: a fake-knocked- out Snape would have had much the same usefulness as a cloaked one. Pip suggests this was a glitch in the plan. Also, I'm not 100 percent sure of what he could do while cloaked; all magic has some effect even if he can do it wordlessly; I don't think he could have done magic and stayed undetected at the same time. He's establishing a reason for being there. > If push came to > shove, he could always decloak back at Hogwarts' park. Everybody > would assume he had been waiting for them or had just come on the > scene, and nobody would be the wiser. If Snape was trying to control > events, why would Snape and Dumbledore want to choose Pip's scenario > rather than the one I just laid out? I'm not sure he's trying to control events as much as tip them in a certain direction. Also, it's quite possible that he wanted to face Sirius and Lupin for his own reasons, if only for a little while. He still hates them both. Maybe he couldn't resist the opportunity to make them suffer. Also, Pip suggests he was improvising at this point anyway; that does give this theory some wiggle room. :-) I remarked on Snape provoking Harry and how this always has the same effect of making Harry more stubborn. Marcus asks: > Yes, but why should he count on his poking and prodding to provoke > Harry to attack now when it hasn't before? This is a much more life-and-death situation, not a classroom. If Harry wanted to get Snape out of the way he had to do something agressive. It seems plausible to me that he'd do so now. It's not a matter of a few house points at stake. > You cannot argue that his > antagonizing HHR is a sign of his true mission because that is how he > always treats them. I'm afraid I do find this plausible and I do argue it all the time. I think Dumbledore takes advantage of Snape's natural personality by assigning him duties which work well with his menace. I don't think the fact that he *is* nasty and the fact that this nastiness can sometimes have a useful function negate each other. > If Dumbledore and Snape had the goals as outlined by Pip, there are > far simplier ways to accomplish them, or at least more controlled > ways. When Dumbledore allowed a first year to face down Voldemort > and his minion, it was in a Hogwart's dungeon. Why not a similar > situation? Pip has stated how this situation would have been a bit off the cuff; no one could have predicted when or how Peter would have made a run for it or been caught out by someone else. Not that the seven protections of PS/SS were simple! Controlled, yes. But Pip has argued that the story climaxes get more uncontrolled and dangerous each year so as to make Harry that much stronger and more resourceful. Marcus, I can't make you see the fun in this explanation of events. :-) I admit it might not be true, but I think it has some possibilites. It does explain some irregularites in the text. And I'm fond of conspiracy theories. ~P. From elfundeb at aol.com Wed Jun 12 05:16:26 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:16:26 EDT Subject: The Spying Game, Resurrected Voldemort and Destiny v. Choice Message-ID: <1a2.38cccb9.2a38332a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39722 First, let me add my voice to the chorus of thousands who are pleased to see Pip endorse Competent! Snape, even if he is a mean ugly schnook sometimes (well, most of the time). But I do have a lot of trouble with the notion that Snape and/or Dumbledore would engineer a plan for Harry to create a life-debt for Peter Pettigrew for him to take to Voldemort. As Dumbledore says later, in respect of that same life-debt: "The consequences of our actions are always so complicated, so diverse, that predicting the future is a very difficult business indeed." Suggesting to Harry that he might be glad that he saved Pettigrew's life is very different from attempting to engineer that result. Too many things can go wrong, before and after the intended escape of Pettigrew, and Dumbledore and Snape cannot control the actions of anyone but themselves. They can't even control Harry. Indeed, finding Pettigrew on the map long after he had disappeared was just a bit of serendipity. Dumbledore might be able to guess that Harry would spare Pettigrew given the chance, but so many other things might have happened, and almost did, even under your scenario, Pip. IMO, Dumbledore just gathers his intelligence and takes actions so that the other characters have the tools they need - to the extent such tools exist - to act on the choices he thinks they might make. It seems to me that 80 percent of Snape's actions, in the Shrieking Shack and in the hospital wing, are explainable by the simple fact that he despised Sirius and was intent, at all costs, on capturing Sirius himself. For example: Lupin is armed with a wand; he's the most immediate threat. He's also talking too much. Snape solves those problems very efficiently with his magical rope trick. My take: Lupin is a distraction to Snape, whose main object is Sirius; he is bound for convenience and can be dealt with later. However, he doesn't solve the problem of Sirius in the same efficient manner. Instead he holds him off by pointing his wand at him. He points his wand at Sirius and makes his threat (I assume the threat is AK). He's been wanting to do this for a long time, but has no intention of actually killing him. He just wants to make Sirius squirm for awhile. It's Hermione who takes action here: she suggests that Snape listens to their side of the story. And Snape tells her to shut up in no uncertain terms. I'll discuss his very interesting terminology later on. My take: Hermione distracts him from his mission, so he shuts her up in his usual fashion. Once Snape has successfully stopped Hermione he still makes no action to put restraints on Sirius. He could surely make the nasty series of threats he's about to make much more effectively if Sirius was also tied up and helpless [it's more fun, as well. You can take your time.:-) ]. It would be unsporting and cowardly for Snape to bind Sirius up and then threaten him. Competent! Snape, accomplished dueler, would not do any such thing. Snape's first threat against Sirius is that he'll hand Sirius over to the Dementors; after the events in PoA everyone in the school knows how much Harry hates and fears Dementors. Aside from instant death, this is the worst threat he could make to Sirius. Snape is just going through his laundry list before he marches Sirius up to the castle, soul intact, so he can claim the credit. And indeed, in his next breath Snape makes clear that he is going to bring Sirius in alive and well. Note that at this point, in complete contrast to Snape's very effective action with Lupin and his checkmating of Sirius, Snape doesn't *do* anything to Harry. He just tells him to get out of the way. And no, it's not because he's got one hand full of rope and the other training his wand on Sirius Black. No, it's because he's not interested in Harry right now; he's just in the way of Snape's triumphant march back to the castle with Sirius. Besides, Harry is a student. Snape can blast teachers who are suspected criminals with spells. But he can't just knock out a student. (Remember what McGonagall tells Crouch/Moody the following year after the ferret incident.) Instead, Snape tells him to get out of the way, and when he doesn't, he uses the same means he used in Snape's Grudge: He insults James. But, IMO, he never takes his eyes or his wand off Sirius. He's probably only half looking at Harry, and he's not looking at Hermione or Ron at all. That's how he can be blindsided by the Trio. To discuss that rat...or, rather, to NOT discuss that rat. Sirius says "As long as this boy brings the rat up to the castle..." Snape promptly shifts the conversation away from rats by threatening that he doesn't need to take Black near the castle. Black's next line is "You - you've got to hear me out. The rat - look at the rat-" and again Snape promptly forces the conversation on; this time by switching to threats against Lupin. (PoA p.264) Snape doesn't care about the rat. He doesn't want exculpatory evidence. He wants to bring Sirius up to the castle as his prisoner, and Lupin, too, as an extra bonus, to prove to Dumbledore that Snape was right about him all along. And what does Dumbledore do? His normal style is to insist that Harry should tell his side of the story. Here he gets Fudge, Snape and Poppy Pomfrey out of the room before the conversation can go any further. Dumbledore doesn't want any embarrassing discussions about Pettigrew's rat transformations either (or about Sirius's innocence). [snip] The point is that neither Severus Snape or Albus Dumbledore would have any reason to shift the conversation so deliberately away from the word 'rat' unless they *both* knew that 'Peter-Pettigrew-is- alive-and-he's-Scabbers'. Dumbledore cuts everyone off because there's no time for explanations, if Harry and Hermione are going to free Sirius. They have to use the Time-Turner before the Dementor arrives to perform the kiss on Sirius, because (and I realize here that there are those who believe differently, but I think this is what JKR intended) the Time-Turner can't be used to *change* history; it creates simultaneous histories for the users of the Time-Turner. So Dumbledore shuts everyone up so H&H can get on with it ASAP. We know Harry's protection is somehow connected with Privet Drive, and relatives - probably blood relatives. It seems to be possible to risk the occasional (non-Hogwarts) week or two away from them provided he's being babysat by other wizards - but he is unlikely to survive long living with Sirius. Sirius Black, bless his little loyal doggy heart, has proven unable to protect *himself* against Death Eater machinations, let alone Harry. Since Harry is obviously a vital part of Dumbledore's 'defeat Voldemort' plan this suggests that however much Dumbledore might believe in Black's innocence, he would have felt it more important to avoid having Harry's legal guardian insisting on removing Harry from the dreadful Dursley's. I can't see how exonerating Sirius would by itself put Harry in danger. If, as is probably the case, Harry is only safe with the Dursleys or at Hogwarts, surely Sirius wouldn't insist on keeping him. Unless he was evil, in which case his insistence would be a dead giveaway. Furthermore, a highly disappointed and rather concussed Snape is really in no state to be making very fine judgement calls on the exact long-term effect he's having on Fudge. His performance gets them out of the hole they're in *right now*, and that is likely to be all he's thinking about. But doesn't this support the surface reading that Snape, in his last conversation with Fudge, is simply overcome with anger at the realization that after Snape finally succeeded in obtaining his revenge for the Prank by capturing evil Sirius and handing him over, Sirius has escaped? Eloise, commenting on the Resurrected Voldemort addenda: I do find it interesting that he's resurrected via a *potion*. And I do wonder if Voldemort, believing Snape still loyal to himself, sent Wormtail to him for advice. And naturally Snape, now being on the side of right, engineered, along with Dumbledore for there to be a fatal flaw (hence the gleam of triumph, when Dumbledore realised the plot had succeeded). If Wormtail had to believe Snape's continuing loyalty to Voldemort, that in itself would be a reason for Snape to ignore Sirius' pleas to 'look at the rat'. This idea of Snape sending Pettigrew off with the fatal resurrection potion really intrigued me when I read it, though the *plan* assumes too much - to use David's points -- starting with the idea that Voldemort would use Harry in the first place and ending with the idea that Voldemort would not kill him. Unless, of course (thinking out loud here), Snape and Dumbledore knew Harry would survive because, say, Trelawney's first prediction was that the last Potter would kill Voldemort. This would also accord with my personal view that (a) Voldemort as a noxious gas was immortal and could not be killed, (b) there were other ways besides the potion to resurrect him, and (c) the potion effectively anit-baptized Voldemort so that he lost his immortality, necessary so that Voldemort could be killed - and that Harry's blood was not necessary to accomplish this. So perhaps they arranged for Pettigrew to take back the potion intending that Harry would continue to be protected, either at the Dursleys or at Hogwarts. But how? I can't figure this part out. Or why Voldemort would still believe Snape is loyal to him after all the work Snape did in PS/SS to thwart Quirrell with Voldemort hiding in his turban. Porphyria, on Harry and Job: Job finds himself in the middle of a cosmic conspiracy which puts him into an impossible situation in order for the powers that be to work out their theology of blessedness and grace. Despite this, Job still acquits himself on account of the choices he makes under duress. Harry is in much the same situation with Dumbledore (and Snape). The end of PS/SS makes this explicit: Harry suspects that Dumbledore has set him up: letting him see Hagrid withdraw the package from the bank, giving him the invisibility cloak, letting him see the Mirror of Erised, expressing joy that he'd figured out who Nicolas Flamel was. None of this dilutes the fact that Harry made his own choices in the situation; his heroism and courage remains the same whether he's right or wrong about what Dumbledore wanted him to do. I absolutely agree with all of this, except that I'm not convinced Dumbledore has really "set him up." He chooses to have Hagrid perfom the double mission of collecting the Stone and getting Harry his school things, but Harry pays very little attention to the attempted theft until (a) he reads the Daily Prophet article, (b) the foursome stumbles across Fluffy, (c) Hermione tells the others that Fluffy was obviously guarding something, and (d) nearly two months later, they decide that Snape is trying to steal it. That's when Hagrid slips up and mentions Flamel (and he looks furious with himself). I only after HRH tell Hagrid they're trying to figure out who Flamel is (and Hagrid tells Dumbledore) does Dumbledore decide that Harry's ready to start receiving the tools he needs. So he gives him the cloak, temporarily moves the Mirror (I have to assume that it was guarding the Stone until Christmas day). Basically, I think that rather than setting Harry up, Dumbledore figured out what kind of choices Harry was making and then gave him the tools he would need to have a chance to succeed. Harry really stepped up to the plate himself in PS/SS; he didn't have to, although obviously the earlier Harry learned what he'll need to survive as a Voldemort target the better off he'd be. In the event he did not, there were a lot of protective eyes watching and guarding Harry (Snape for example at the Quidditch match) until he's ready (or in the event he refuses) to go to bat for himself. Harry may have a *destiny* but it's his to accept or reject. Debbie, who needs to ditch that day-job and become a full-time LOON [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Wed Jun 12 05:32:27 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 05:32:27 -0000 Subject: Heartstring / Snape by Pip / Animagi Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39723 ArchaeoloJames wrote: > Does anyone even know what a "Dragon Heartstring" is? I see no > reason why this could not either be external, or at least non-fatal > to take. According to www.dictionary.com, "One of the nerves or tendons formerly believed to brace and sustain the heart." IE, inside the ribcage. Porphyria wrote: > cruelly throwing his past in his face shortly prior to this > ("my memory is as good as it ever was"). I take it you mean his past as a Death Eater: "You're a person who committed several murders and you're condemning a person who attempted only one murder. Pot and kettle." One time I saw where someone had a totally opposite understanding of that incident: that other listie said that Dumbledore was comfortingly reassuring Snape that he remembered both the wrongs done him by Sirius and the heroic service against Voldemort (as spy) that Severus had given. Me, I always read it as Dumbledore's polite way of saying: "Stop nagging me! I heard you the first time!" Pip Squeak wrote: > [inability of] making physical contact with Voldemort in Albania > after the Philosopher's Stone disaster. Owls, and other indirect > means of contact, probably were possible. I don't think it's possible to communicate with a mist by owl ... how would the mist write a reply letter? If he took over a rodent's body, would its eyes even be able to read, let alone its paws write? Between the death of Quirell and the arrival of Pettigrew, Voldemort had no human body. > The spell Voldemort uses requires a servant's flesh and an enemy's > blood, which are both rather widely available. It also requires the > bone of Voldemort's father, which is much more limited in supply > and could have been destroyed. The fact that it wasn't suggests > that Dumbledore was deliberately trying to make sure Voldemort > only had one resurrection option open to him. This requires that Dumbledore knew what resurrection spell Voldemort was going to use. I had the impression that no resurrection spells were known (which is not to say that they had not been created, just that they were not recorded) --> and therefore Voldemort had had to invent his own resurrection spell (why not, he already created his own immortality spells) --> and therefore Dumbledore could not have known what the ingredients would be. Unless Eloise's suggestion is right: " I do find it interesting that he's resurrected via a *potion*. And I do wonder if Voldemort, believing Snape still loyal to himself, sent Wormtail to him for advice." When Pip Squeak wrote: > > If Fudge had sent out a search party immediately, might > > Pettigrew have been recaptured? Eloise replied: > Have you ever tried to catch a rat? A search party of terriers. Accompanied by wizards who know the spell to force Animagi to resume human form (which I think may be Homorphus). Pippin wrote: > There's no room for a full grown stag to negotiate the tunnel to > the shack. Yes, I too envision James rushing to the rescue in human form. But I think he had to turn into a stag to hold the werewolf off while Snape made his getaway (or at least to save himself from the werewolf). I don't see HOW Snape could have looked back to see the werewolf (and then run even faster away) without also seeing the stag... Hana wrote: > Oh, and since it's obvious that an animagus needs to keep > his/her intelligence when transforming so that they can change > back, can the same be said for people transfigured by others > like Draco-Ferret? No, according to Quidditch Through the Ages: "The witch or wizard who finds him- or herself transfigured into a bat may take to the air, but, having a bat's brain, they are sure to forget where they want to go the moment they take flight." From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Wed Jun 12 06:58:52 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 06:58:52 -0000 Subject: The Spying Game Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39724 porphyria_ash writes: Marcus, I can't make you see the fun in this explanation of events. :-) I admit it might not be true, but I think it has some possibilites. It does explain some irregularites in the text. And I'm fond of conspiracy theories. -------- Yes, speculation is fun, especially since we don't have all the information yet. However, it is my nature to pick things apart looking for flaws. I can't help it, which is why I enjoy Harry Potter so well. I have found so few true FLINTs. Most inconsistancies can be explained very easily, especially the ones involving what somebody said. JKR has shown the refreshing trait of not tying up all the loose ends at the end of a book. Her characters do not always speak the absolute truth, just like in real life. She has also shown a wonderful gift of making all her plot twists plausible, except for Pseudo-moody. But hey, nobody's perfect, not even JKR. :) BTW, what irregularities are you referring to? ====================== ********************** ====================== Debbie (elfundeb) writes: First, let me add my voice to the chorus of thousands who are pleased to see Pip endorse Competent! Snape, even if he is a mean ugly schnook sometimes (well, most of the time). -------- Oh yes. Being a mean ugly shnook does not automatically preclude one from being competent, or honorable for that matter. :) ======== Debbie again: Basically, I think that rather than setting Harry up, Dumbledore figured out what kind of choices Harry was making and then gave him the tools he would need to have a chance to succeed. ------------------ This is the best explanation I've ever seen on Dumbledore's actions in book #1. Thanks! Marcus From naama_gat at hotmail.com Wed Jun 12 07:36:48 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 07:36:48 -0000 Subject: Moody's Dark detectors reacting to Crouch Jr. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39725 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "merimom3" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naamagatus" wrote: > > In PoA, Ron buys Harry a Sneakoscope; > > while he was tying it Errol, it whistled - because Ron shouldn't > have > > been using Errol for such a distance. > > I have to differ, Naama. The Sneakascope activated because Scabbers > was, presumably, in the room with Ron when he was sending it to > Harry. His presence was what kept it active every time they took it > out. > Welcome Ginny! You are right. If Scabbers was with Ron (and he was constantly with him), then Scabbers' presence was probably what activated the Sneakoscope. However, it doesn't really detract from the argument that Sneakoscopes can be activated by deception practiced by their owners, since Hermione suggested it and Ron accepted it as possible. (I'm assuming that they are familiar with how Sneakoscopes work.) Naama From lmccabe at sonic.net Wed Jun 12 08:11:13 2002 From: lmccabe at sonic.net (Linda C. McCabe) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 01:11:13 -0700 Subject: Evil!Minerva? - I think NOT, Names have meaning in Potterverse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39726 Athena has been awakened from a deep slumber brought about by being behind hundreds of posts and has heard that Elkins has dared to attack the good name of Minerva McGonagall. She reads the lengthy scroll of can(n)on arguments and shakes her head. She notices that others quickly pile on attacking her. It is as if a Witch Hunt were starting. It is sad that the long wait for OoP has come to this. A woman being besmirched and later accused to be Voldemort's secret lover. Athena shakes her head. No, No, No. That is because JKR has set up the Potterverse so that names have meanings. She scribbles something down on a new piece of parchment. You can go and see the various characters and the meanings of their names: http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/cookarama/namemean.html There, for those who seem to have forgotten (or never read Greek/Roman Mythology), Minerva is the Roman name for Athena. The Goddess of Wisdom and Victory. A Goddess who sprung fully grown from the head of her father Zeus. Now, would a woman named for such a noble mythological figure be eeevil? Not if JKR continues on naming her characters with clues about their true characteristics. And yes, as Naama pointed out <<<>>> If Minerva had been a secret ally of Crouch, then the foe glass would have only shown Dumbledore and Snape. Incriminating statements or suspicious actions notwithstanding, if she were a double agent and had supported Crouch/Voldemort - then she would not have appeared in that Auror device. JKR could simply have had her come in moments later after Dumbledore blasted through the door. But no, she was there along with Snape. This was to emphasize McGonagall's importance to Dumbledore, otherwise what was the purpose for that magical device? Why did JKR create it and place it there? As was mentioned before, was it only to show Snape looking strangely at a mirror-like object? To give another possible clue of his oft-debated vampirism? There's enough other clues for that if JKR decides to go with that theme. And according to the website linked above (Arabella Figg's Hogwarts Express) finds this as the meaning of her surname: The Scottish name McGonagall (or McGonigle, McGonegal) is from the Celtic name Conegal, meaning "the bravest," plus Mc, or "son of." So the name Minerva McGonagall literally translates to: Goddess of Wisdom and Victory and is the Bravest. Sounds like Gryffindor material to me and not Ever So Evil. Someone who would Stand Up to Evil. Besides, the Greek Goddess was one of several Virgin Goddesses. She did not allow herself to be possessed by any man. That would preclude any nefarious relationship with Voldemort regardless of whether or not it meant any hot sweaty nights in sheets with a formerly handsome Head Boy. Perish the thought!!! Athena finds herself ducking to avoid the flying hedgehogs buzzing over her head with Sirius Black and Remus Lupin's names on them. No, these men have suffered enough. They must be loyal to The Cause. They do not serve the same literary device and one betrayal by a close friend of Harry's parents is more than enough. Other hedgehogs as evil...Bagman? Fudge? Trelawney? Fire away! The Goddess has no objections to having them turn out to be ever so evil. Sirius being the grandson of Grindlewald? HA! She exclaims. Why anyone involved in a war who is as shrewd as Dumbledore would surely know all of his opponent's closest family and allies. If Grindlewald had a daughter such as hypothesized by Dicentra, then surely Dumbledore would have kept close tabs on her and any child she would have had. Yes, Dumbledore believes that it is our choices and not our abilities which show our true selves. That's why he allows the children of Death Eaters to attend Hogwarts. He also allows people second chances, but ask yourselves...Would he give someone a second chance who he would be naturally suspicious of? Would he have not expelled Sirius after The Prank if he was Grindlewald's grandson? No, that theory just doesn't hold weight. Not with someone who's infatuated with Sirius. Nope, I see him as an intensely loyal friend who was caught up in his own cleverness and paid for it dearly by spending twelve years in Azkaban and two years on the run eating rats. The Hurt-Comfort aspect would totally fall apart if he were somehow coveting Evil Overlord title himself. (In contemplating what it would be like to live in the Forbidden Forest and a cave for two years, I imagine that whenever he caught and started to eat a rat that he visualized each one as having Wormtail's head. A small form of therapy.) And as for Arabella Figg, my own personal favorite as a love interest for Sirius (that is if she's been taking an aging potion all this time and is far younger than she appears), her name translates to: Arabella Figg: 1) Latin, ara and bellis, or "beautiful altar." (2) Possibly from the German Amhilda, "eagle heroine/warrior." Figg may be variation of fig, a fruit-bearing tree. In Biblical times, the fig tree was important to Roman and Hebrew cultures as a valuable source of food and medicinal ingredients. Its flowering meant winter was over. For Buddhists, this is the tree under which the Buddha received enlightenment. that is once again from Arabella Figg's Hogwarts Express page. And for those worried, worried, worried that she is Polyjuiced up, I wish to remind you that there are *three* mentions of cabbage in Year One PS/SS. Paperback, US edition p. 22: "Every year, Harry was left behind with Mrs. Figg, a mad old lady who lived two streets away. Harry hated it there. The whole house smelled of cabbage and Mrs. Figg made him look at photographs of all the cat's she'd ever owned." p. 25. "But today, nothing was going to go wrong. It was even worth being with Dudley and piers to be spending the day somewhere that wasn't school, his cupboard, or Mrs. Figg's cabbage-smelling living room." p. 80. "Then they visited the Apothecary, which was fascinating enough to make up for its horrible smell, a mixture of bad eggs and rotted cabbages. Barrels of slimy stuff stood on the floor; jars of herbs, dried roots, and bright powders lined the walls; bundles of feathers, strings of fangs, and snarled claws hung from the ceiling." I prefer the reading that if you have a large collection of magical ingredients it can get quite odoriferous. I quickly checked the first scene of Snape's dungeon and there's no mention of any smell. Perhaps the cold damp dungeons keep the smells in check as opposed to an aboveground Apothecary in Diagon Alley or a house in a suburban Muggle neighborhood? *yes, yes, I know that p. 216 of CoS that the Polyjuice Potion is said to have "tasted like overcooked cabbage." However, I cannot for the life of me consider that Albus Dumbledore would make an agent of his continually brew and drink a potion for *years and years* in order to protect Harry. Some other ruse would be much more efficient. I thought it was a bit of a stretch for Crouch, jr. to do it for one entire school year. Signing up to do it for over a decade is a bit much for me. By the way, in re-reading the First Chapter of the First Book, I noticed that there are several instances of owls on Privet Drive. Who else is a witch or wizard that live(d) there? And why didn't Aunt Petunia (rubber necking over her neighbor's back fence never catch on?) p. 2. None of them noticed a large, tawny owl flutter past the window. p.8 Mr. Dursley might have been drifting into an uneasy sleep, but the cat on the wall outside was showing no sign of sleepiness. It was sitting as still as a statue, its eyes fixed unblinkingly on the far corner of Privet Drive. It didn't so much as quiver when a car door slammed on the next street, nor when two owls swooped overhead." Anyone have any thoughts as to who these inhabitants might be (or might have been?) it seems they might have been forcibly relocated if Dumbledore worried intensely about a security zone about Harry and trusted very, very few people. And then as the Goddess was ready to retire to her chambers, she notices a name meaning that sends alarm bells off. Professor Sinestra: The Latin sinister meant "on the left," or more often, "unlucky." Something that is sinister in Modern English means it is evil or suggestive of evil. The left side was often associated with evil or bad luck in Roman and other ancient cultures. Ooooh, many wild theories have been woven with less yarn than this. Didn't Crouch, Jr. dance with Sinestra at the Yule Ball? Hmmm, the Goddess decides to contemplate that creepy image in her mind. Athena From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Jun 12 08:46:51 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:46:51 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's support in and pre-GOF (was Spying game) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39727 Marina wrote: > How about, so stupid and overconfident that you *untie the brat and > give him his wand back*? Stupid and Overconfident are Voldemort's > middle names, or at least they should be after his performance in > GoF. His behavior there simply doesn't mesh with the behavior of > someone who's carefully hedging his bets against the possibility of > failure. > > Marina You must remember at all times when reading that scene that Voldemort may look like he's back to his old self, but in fact he is probably still very debilitated. He cannot risk a major thrust against his power from no-one, specially not from within his own ranks. He has to get those loyalties back in line before they realise that he can be further deblitated and pushed aside, reduced to little more than a well of knowledge to whomever draws the wand quickest. Thus, he needs a demonstration of power "killing the brat" is not enough. He has to demonstrate that, this time, he is kapable of AKing the boy in the hardest possible circunstance: a duel. One against one. No help. But let assume that he IS back to his complete power: the argument is still valid, since maybe some of the DE in the inner circle believe he is debilitated and try to usurp the power: V doesn't have the time (nor enough spares) to go dueling with half his DE force. He needs all of them since, if everything had gone well, they would be taking the portkey!Cup back to Hogwarts to start the party inmediately. I've recommended http://www.eviloverlord.com in any number of ocasions, since it includes some of the things that Voldy should have done, but the truth is that if you want to be feared, you're going to have to do geat, cruel, and overall *reckless* things to earn that fear. If you gain a reputation for inmortality, people are *not* going to think about usurping your throne. And V *has* that reputation. In fact, a good thing has comed over the graveyard scene (for him). He may have not killed Harry, but this time he is still alive and in one piece, and Harry has had to flee. All the DE have seen how Harry is powerless against their master, and the respect V was looking for was probably gained with that escape. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who is a total convert to Pip's theory, and will back it up anytime Pip doesn't. From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Jun 12 09:22:02 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 09:22:02 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39728 Marina wrote: > That doesn't make sense to me. If Dumbledore could engineer it so > that Voldemort had only one resurrection option left, then why not > take that final step and remove the last option, too? That would > leave Voldemort with no resurrection options at all and solve > everybody's problems. (Well, except Voldemort's, obviously.) See your own #1 condition: Dumbledore couldn't risk having Voldemort use another resurrection option. We know from PS that there are many avilable. They must difere in quality, easiness, speed, amount of power restored and a few other variables, but they could all restore a dying man's body. Dumbledore wanted V to use this particular one because there is a major flaw in it, albeit that flaw is only known to the greatest experts in the field of potions, i.e. Snape (I say this because I know you won't dare discuss something that puts Snape so high). Indeed, the "blood of the enemy, forcefully taken" is the greatest error in the formula: that blood will work against the user of the potion, and is the weak link that wil allow Dumbledore to insert the lever and shove. Please note that Harry is not mentioned at all. You'll see why in a moment. > Instead, Dumbledore allows Voldemort to come back, betting that *all* > of the following circumstances will be true: > > 1. Voldemort won't discover some other method Dumbledore doesn't know > about. Dumbledore is forcefully seeking this one: he leaves a big, great exit door with neon-pink flashing lights on top saying "Follow me", so he doesn't notice the small trapdoor under his feet wich would make him unstopable. > 2. Voldemort will not use some enemy other than Harry. I don't know why Harry is best option, although it looks like it is, but for my version, Harry is unecessary: any enemy's blood will do > 3. Voldemort will acquire "blood of the enemy" by decorously nicking > Harry's arm rather than, say, slicing open his jugular. > > 4. Voldemort won't kill Harry as soon as the resurrection ritual is > complete. > > 5. Voldemort, Wormtail, and all other assembled DEs will fail to kill > Harry. > > 6. Harry will have a Portkey or some other escape device handy to > help him get away. This four conditions get down to "Harry will survive", which (in my theory, derived from Pip's) gets a neat True/False answer: Harry isn't needed for Dumbledore's plan to defeat Voldemort. If he's killed, more's the pity, but it's a sacrifice to be done to defeat Voldemort. This definetely agrees with Dumbledore the Grey figure. I'm not sure, however, that the fact that Harry was portkeyed when he was was orchestrated by Dumbledore: I think it took him by surprise, since normally he prefers to have something more useful to defend him than Cedric "spare" Diggory. In that case, maybe Dumbledore was plain unlucky, and his whole great plan stood in the brink of disaster for a while, but I think it's more probable that he's not depending only on Harry to win, but has a few other options available if Harry manages to get himself killed in one of those little shows in May/June. > 7. After all that rigamarole, the resulting weakness in Voldemort > will actually be enough to ensure his defeat. That is, in fact, the basis of the plan: Dumbledore searched for a resurrection form that would ensure Voldemort's defeat, since it would the only way to have Voldy play right into his hands. Years back, he discussed it with Snape (and maybe a few others), and Snape provided the perfect formula (the one used by Voldemort). The next thing was, of course, dispose of all other ways of resurrection so V had only one option available. Since that is probably impossible, Dumbledore worked on making it the easiest of the best options. Since the easiest option was the Philosopher's Stone, he first hid it and then destroyed it (here we see the first sacrifice of the fight: Flammel, who had eons of life still in front of him). Then, he continued to cut his other options one by one, but always leaving the Riddle home free (Dumbledore is the owner of the house "for financilal purposes"). > The number of random variables here is just staggering, and if any > one of the above items goes wrong (and we still have no guarantee on > #7), the WW is once against stuck with a sadistic invincible Dark > Lord wreaking havoc. If that's Dumbledore's idea of "having control > over circumstances," then I don't think "gray" is the right color for > him. I'm not sure what the color for total idiocy is, but that's what > I'd be painting him. If you look at it the way I have exposed it, you'll see that, in fact, there is only one variable: Voldemort deciding to use another formula, and even that has been controlled by Dumbledore since the very first book. I have, of course, based my supositions on the fact that Dumbledore made sure that the formula V used would assure #7, which seems like a safe bet. > Marina (who wishes to make it clear that her problems with this > theory do not in any way interfere with her belief in > Competent!Snape) Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who doesn't believe in Evil!Dumbledore, but does believe in Dumbledore the Grey, since it pairs well with his own name and with the other greatest magician of fantasy books: Gandalf the Grey. From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Jun 12 09:55:47 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 09:55:47 -0000 Subject: What *Really* is the Purpose (or nature) of Transfiguration? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39729 Hana wrote: > I don't know if I agree with the idea of a time limit though. The chess set in PS/SS was transfigured and I doubt that McGonagall crept past everyone elses traps to retransfigure the chess set numerous times a day. (I wonder what it ~used~ to be before it was a huge game of wizard's chess?) > > Well, I think I've babbled on long enough -- hope some of this makes sense. > > --- > --Hana (who should really stop thinking out loud when posting) The chess was probably most of the time inanimated (answering to your second question: when not a chess game, they're simply giant statues), and someone entering the room triggers the effect (better still, as seen in the film-that-must-not-be-named, when someone reaches the third row in the white side). That way, the magic can last longer - making even more sense that transfiguration needs, nonetheless, frequent repowerings, like if they run on batteries. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 12 11:17:31 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:17:31 -0000 Subject: Heartstring / Snape by Pip / Animagi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39730 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > > Oh, and since it's obvious that an animagus needs to keep > > his/her intelligence when transforming so that they can change > > back, can the same be said for people transfigured by others > > like Draco-Ferret? > > No, according to Quidditch Through the Ages: > "The witch or wizard who finds him- or herself transfigured into a > bat may take to the air, but, having a bat's brain, they are sure to > forget where they want to go the moment they take flight." Yeah, but we know that's not true. Reeta Skeeter turns into a beetle and flies around all over the place while retaining enough human intelligence to eavesdrop on conversations and remember them well enough to write them down later. She certainly has no problems remembering where she wants to go as a beetle. My theory is that the guy who wrote QTA may have known a lot about Quidditch, but he didn't know squat about Animagus transformation. :-) Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From naama_gat at hotmail.com Wed Jun 12 11:23:16 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:23:16 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39731 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > Marina wrote: > > That doesn't make sense to me. If Dumbledore could engineer it so > > that Voldemort had only one resurrection option left, then why not > > take that final step and remove the last option, too? That would > > leave Voldemort with no resurrection options at all and solve > > everybody's problems. (Well, except Voldemort's, obviously.) > > See your own #1 condition: Dumbledore couldn't risk having >Voldemort use another resurrection option. We know from PS that there >are many avilable. Where? I don't remember that. >They must difere in quality, easiness, speed, amount of power >restored and a few other variables, but they could all restore a >dying man's body. Dumbledore wanted V to use this particular one >because > there is a major flaw in it, albeit that flaw is only known to the > greatest experts in the field of potions, i.e. Snape (I say this > because I know you won't dare discuss something that puts Snape so > high). Tom Riddle, after Hogwarts, had disappeared for over fifty years, delving into the darkest of Dark Arts. He was "probably the brightest" of the students that ever attended Hogwarts. Knowing this, you think that Dumbledore would base his entire strategy on the assumption that Snape or he would better Voldemort in his own field of expertise!? Outwitting Voldemort, who "has gone further than any other down the path of immortality" [free quote]? You don't think that makes Dumbledore just a tad ... you know ... arrogant ... to the point of MEGALOMANIA? >>Instead, Dumbledore allows Voldemort to come back, betting that *all*of the following circumstances will be true: > > > > 1. Voldemort won't discover some other method Dumbledore doesn't >>know about. > > Dumbledore is forcefully seeking this one: he leaves a big, great >exit door with neon-pink flashing lights on top saying "Follow me", >so he doesn't notice the small trapdoor under his feet wich would >make him unstopable. > And that's a *good* plan - relying on the stupidity of an enemy who is known to be extremely clever?! I'm sorry, but does that really make sense to you? Because it sure doesn't to me. > > This four conditions get down to "Harry will survive", which (in my > theory, derived from Pip's) gets a neat True/False answer: Harry isn't > needed for Dumbledore's plan to defeat Voldemort. If he's killed, > more's the pity, but it's a sacrifice to be done to defeat Voldemort. This definetely agrees with Dumbledore the Grey figure. > I have to disagree. That makes Dumbledore Black. If Crouch Sr. is frowned upon for allowing Unforgivables against DEs and sending suspects to Azkaban without trial, you think that allowing an INNOCENT boy to die (even if for a good cause) can be considered GREY?! No. Sorry, it's bad. If Dumbledore made that cold hearted, cold blooded choice then he is much worse than even Crouch Sr. > > > 7. After all that rigamarole, the resulting weakness in Voldemort > > will actually be enough to ensure his defeat. > > That is, in fact, the basis of the plan: Dumbledore searched for a > resurrection form that would ensure Voldemort's defeat, since it >would the only way to have Voldy play right into his hands. Years >back, he discussed it with Snape (and maybe a few others), and Snape >provided the perfect formula (the one used by Voldemort). The next >thing was, of course, dispose of all other ways of resurrection so V >had only one option available. Since that is probably impossible, >Dumbledore worked on making it the easiest of the best options. >Since the easiest option was the Philosopher's Stone, he first hid i>t and then destroyed it (here we see the first sacrifice of the >fight: Flammel, who had eons of life still in front of him). If Dumbledore was as ruthless as you paint him here, he wouldn't have hidden the stone in the first place - he would have destroyed it immediately. And he wouldn't have waited for Flammel to agree (in that "little chat" they had). He would have just done it, with or without permission. >Then, he continued to cut his other options one by one, but always >leaving the Riddle home free (Dumbledore is the owner of the >house "for financilal purposes"). > ^-^ I've always assumed that Voldemort is the wealthy owner. If Tom Riddle Sr. was an only child, then Tom Riddle Jr. was the only grandson, and therefore the inheritor of the estate. > > Grey Wolf, who doesn't believe in Evil!Dumbledore, but does believe in Dumbledore the Grey, since it pairs well with his own name and >with the other greatest magician of fantasy books: Gandalf the Grey. Gandalf greyness relates to rank among wizards, where the colors - brown, grey, white - represent venerability, the colors symbolizing wisdom and power acquired through age. It had nothing to do with moral ambiguity. Besides, Dumbledore is 'the White' - *Albus* Dumbledore, remember? Naama From Zarleycat at aol.com Wed Jun 12 11:28:37 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:28:37 -0000 Subject: Heartstring / Snape by Pip / Animagi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39732 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" > wrote: > > > Oh, and since it's obvious that an animagus needs to keep > > > his/her intelligence when transforming so that they can change > > > back, can the same be said for people transfigured by others > > > like Draco-Ferret? > > > > No, according to Quidditch Through the Ages: > > "The witch or wizard who finds him- or herself transfigured into a bat may take to the air, but, having a bat's brain, they are sure > to > > forget where they want to go the moment they take flight." > Yeah, but we know that's not true. Reeta Skeeter turns into a > beetle and flies around all over the place while retaining enough > human intelligence to eavesdrop on conversations and remember them > well enough to write them down later. She certainly has no problems > remembering where she wants to go as a beetle. My theory is that the > guy who wrote QTA may have known a lot about Quidditch, but he > didn't know squat about Animagus transformation. :-) > > Marina Maybe it's time for me to reread the books, but I was under the impression that Rita was also an unregistered Animagus. IIRC, in discussions about what-we-don't-want-to-see-more-of in the remaining books in the series, a number of people had said that we have quite enough unregistered Animagi, thank you very much. If that's the case, then of course she retains her human intelligence the same as Wormtail, Padfoot or Prongs. Marianne From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 12 11:38:46 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:38:46 -0000 Subject: Heartstring / Snape by Pip / Animagi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39733 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kiricat2001" wrote: > > Yeah, but we know that's not true. Reeta Skeeter turns into a > > beetle and flies around all over the place while retaining enough > > human intelligence to eavesdrop on conversations and remember them > > well enough to write them down later. She certainly has no problems > > remembering where she wants to go as a beetle. My theory is that > the > > guy who wrote QTA may have known a lot about Quidditch, but he > > didn't know squat about Animagus transformation. :-) > > > > Marina > > Maybe it's time for me to reread the books, but I was under the > impression that Rita was also an unregistered Animagus. IIRC, in > discussions about what-we-don't-want-to-see-more-of in the remaining > books in the series, a number of people had said that we have quite > enough unregistered Animagi, thank you very much. If that's the case, > then of course she retains her human intelligence the same as > Wormtail, Padfoot or Prongs. Huh? What does being registered on unregistered have to do with retaining one's human intelligence while in Animagus form? Registered just means you go down to the Ministry and fill out a little form saying "I'm an Animagus, this is what I turn into." It's a bureaucratic procedure, not an aspect of the transformation. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From editor at texas.net Wed Jun 12 12:43:22 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 07:43:22 -0500 Subject: LOON on transifguration/transformation & intelligence retentioni References: Message-ID: <006101c2120e$bdea82a0$757663d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39734 > > Maybe it's time for me to reread the books, but I was under the > > impression that Rita was also an unregistered Animagus. IIRC, in > > discussions about what-we-don't-want-to-see-more-of in the > remaining > > books in the series, a number of people had said that we have > quite > > enough unregistered Animagi, thank you very much. If that's the > case, > > then of course she retains her human intelligence the same as > > Wormtail, Padfoot or Prongs. > > Huh? What does being registered on unregistered have to do with > retaining one's human intelligence while in Animagus form? > Registered just means you go down to the Ministry and fill out a > little form saying "I'm an Animagus, this is what I turn into." > It's a bureaucratic procedure, not an aspect of the transformation. I believe the point that was being made is that Rita Skeeter is an animagus, not that's she's unregistered. As I understand it, animagi are working a very complicated and wandless "animagus spell" on themselves. They *do* retain their intelligence in their animal form, although from some of what Sirius says, outside perception of that may be altered. However, he was referring to emotions: "They [dementors] feel their way toward people by feeding off their emotions....They could tell that my feelings were less -- less human, less complex when I was a dog...." (PoA, US, p. 371) This says nothing about thought processes, and every other evidence we are given about animagi (McGonagall reading the map; Sirius listening in at the end of GoF as a dog, evidently following things; Rita Skeeter gathering information; Peter Pettigrew knowing how to act and knowing his peril in the Shrieking Shack, etc.) is that their human intelligence is intact in animagus form. This is contrasted with a *transfiguration* worked by a wizard on someone else. It is a different spell, I think Moody used a wand, and the transfigured person does *not* retain their intelligence. I do not believe the term "transfiguration" is used in reference to animagi; when Sirius turns into the dog, I think the verb is "transformed"? The actual wording of the passage in Quidditch through the ages makes this fine distinction: "Those few Animagi who transform into winged creatures may enjoy flight, but they are a rarity. The witch or wizard who finds him- or herself transfigured into a bat may take to the air, but having a bat's brain, they are sure to forget where they want to go the moment they take flight." (p. 1) >From this, I see a distinction between *animagi* who *transform* themselves and *someone* who *is transfigured* (i.e., by someone else). This quote presents the first two examples of a sequence of ways wizards can get into the air unaided, it is #1 and #2 of a list. The second sentence is NOT a restatement of the first. They are two different situations being described. My conclusion is this: Transfiguration - the changing of the shape of something else (person or thing) by a wizard. Wand used. Many grades of this spell, beginning with matches to needles. Transformation (via animagus spell) - the changing of oneself into one's animal form. Wandless. Only one variant of this spell; very complex and hard to learn. Hope that helped clear things up, --Amanda From aiz24 at hotmail.com Wed Jun 12 12:45:09 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:45:09 -0400 Subject: The Spying Game and other fun twists Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39735 Pip wrote: > So Dumbledore probably (non-canon assumption) already knew Pettigrew > was an Animagi; when is he likely to have realised he was Scabbers? > > Again, we're off-canon here, but probably at precisely the same > moment Sirius did - when he saw the picture of Scabbers and his > missing toe in the Daily Prophet. Did he make some discreet enquiries > to try and find how long Scabbers had been with the Weasley's? Even if Dumbledore did know Pettigrew was an Animagus, how would he recognize a particular rat as Pettigrew? Sirius recognizes him because he's seen him a hundred times. The implication of that explanation is that he couldn't pick out any old Animagus rat in a crowd of real rats. Furthermore, most wizards cannot distinguish Animagi from animals: Snape doesn't know the dog is a man in GF, Molly and Arthur don't know the rat is a man in 12 years of having him in their home, none of the judges spot a woman crawling in Hermione's hair at the Second Task, etc. It's a very effective disguise. Now, Dumbledore can do all sorts of things most wizards can't, but there is no canon to suggest that he sees through Animagical transformations (I do realize you said it was pure speculation). Nor can Sirius; he recognizes Peter because he *knows* him, the way you know your dog from other similar dogs. As for his knowing, >(it's interesting that he knew that James stole food from the kitchens >in >his invisibility cloak) What always interests *me* about that line is that it's so totally off the mark. James used it mostly for stealing food? Yeah, right, Albus. He was wearing out his little hooves chasing a werewolf around Hogsmeade while you thought "cute little kids, they will have their stolen cakes." Of course, Dumbledore could be lying. As you demonstrate, if much of what he says is untrue, anything goes. Grey Wolf wrote: >I don't know why Harry is best option, although it looks like it is, but >for my version, Harry is unecessary: any enemy's blood will do and >Harry isn't needed for Dumbledore's plan to defeat Voldemort. Then why does Dumbledore hope for a Harry/Voldemort showdown in GF at all? Let Voldemort kidnap some poor unguarded sap instead. Am I missing a step? David wrote: >Five hundred years before, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington was >almost >beheaded and almost killed (in the sense that though >technically dead he >is still around as a ghost) >Fifty years before, Hagrid's wand was almost broken (even if it's in >separate pieces it still has some function) and he was almost >expelled (in >the sense that though technically expelled he is still >around). >Does it mean anything? Yes. It means Nick and Hagrid are the same person. And, naturally, that person is Ever So Evil. You know, I was listening to CoS last night and this passage was eerily familiar. No, not because I've read it 10 times already, but because it sounds like a manifesto from the Order of the Flying Hedgehog. "Justin's been waiting for something like this to happen ever since he let slip to Potter he was Muggle-born . . . . "He's a Parselmouth. Everyone knows that's the mark of a dark wizard. Have you ever heard of a decent one who could talk to snakes? . . . . "Remember what was written on the wall? *Enemies of the Heir Beware.* Potter had some sort of run-in with Filch. Next thing we know, Filch's cat's attacked. That first year, Creevey, was annoying Potter at the Quidditch match, taking pictures of him while he was lying in the mud. Next thing we know, Creevey's been attacked." Good point, Ernie! It's so logical! The evidence against Harry is overwhelming. And little do you know that the next person to be attacked will be Nick, who dragged Harry to that horrible party and caused no end of trouble. Naive Hannah tries to use common sense: "He always seems so nice, though," said Hannah uncertainly, "and, well, he's the one who made You Know Who disappear. He can't be all bad, can he?" But Ernie is way too canny for such a simplistic argument. "No one knows how he survived that attack by You Know Who. I mean to say, he was only a baby when it happened. He should have been blasted into smithereens. Only a really powerful Dark Wizard could have survived a curse like that." He dropped his voice until it was barely more than a whisper, and said, "That's probably why You Know Who wanted to kill him in the first place. Didn't want another Dark Lord competing with him. I wonder what other powers Potter's been hiding?" I wonder indeed. No doubt about it, St. Ernie should be the patron of the OFH. And of course this proves it: Harry is Ever So Evil. Amy Z who enjoys all the wild theories but is feeling the need for Faith's phone number _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Jun 12 12:46:06 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:46:06 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39736 Naama, watch you tone, please. I was somewhat offended by most of your comments in this post, and even if I'm going to pull back my claws, being treated of "idiot" and "stupid" in a single post is something that I -and possibly anyone else- would be offended at. Naama wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > See your own #1 condition: Dumbledore couldn't risk having > > Voldemort use another resurrection option. We know from PS that > > there are many avilable. > > > Where? I don't remember that. It's implied. We know that the PS is not the only way to restore Voldemort. First off, there's still unicorn's blood, which kept him alive and in a good deal of strenght for an entire year. And Dumbledore tells Harry that it would only take another servant ("someone else who is prepered to fight a loosing battle", liberal translation) to restore him. Since simply the servant is not enough (or he would have been back with the help of Quirrell), and the PS is not available anymore, we must assume that there are other methods available. Being a follower of general fantasy, and having compiled a sizeble essay in the reality rules of half a dozen fantasy worlds, I find it likely that there are a number of resurrection techniques in the Potterverse, having already seen three of them. > >They must difere in quality, easiness, speed, amount of power > >restored and a few other variables, but they could all restore a > >dying man's body. Dumbledore wanted V to use this particular one > >because > > there is a major flaw in it, albeit that flaw is only known to the > > greatest experts in the field of potions, i.e. Snape (I say this > > because I know you won't dare discuss something that puts Snape so > > high). > > > Tom Riddle, after Hogwarts, had disappeared for over fifty years, > delving into the darkest of Dark Arts. He was "probably the > brightest" of the students that ever attended Hogwarts. Knowing this, > you think that Dumbledore would base his entire strategy on the > assumption that Snape or he would better Voldemort in his own field > of expertise!? Outwitting Voldemort, who "has gone further than any > other down the path of immortality" [free quote]? You don't think > that makes Dumbledore just a tad ... you know ... arrogant ... to the > point of MEGALOMANIA? It is generally accepted that when you want to become a expert in something, you have to specialize. And even if he was the greatest student ever, the potion he used was NOT one of the spells he had been looking for: he wanted inmortality, but we know (by his own words) that the potion he used does not give inmortality, just gives him back his own body. To quote (Sp. GoF Edition, ch. 33, liberal translation) "I desired to embrace mortal life again, before searching for the inmortal one" Thus, the potion cannot be one of the ones he investigated himself, nor did he invent it. The words of Voldemort hint that he already knew about it, but it could be interpreted one way or the other. The only thing we know for sure is that (Sp. GoF Edition, ch. 33, liberal translation): "The potion that has revived me tonight is an old treasure of dark magic" Snape is a grand master of potions, and we know that he knows dark magic potions: the polyjuice potion is in the dark arts section, so it is a dark art potion itself. It is not impossible to believe that Snape suggested the potion to Voldemort at some point in the past. In fact, it is very probable, especially if Snape was of the inner circle: Voldemort would have used him to advance his search on inmortality methods. We know Snape probably knows of this potion, in fact. That, or there are so many other methods to "stopper death" that I should simply rest my case. Voldemort knows of Dark Magic, but has spent his life looking for methods to gain inmortality, not mortality. Snape knows of Potions, ALL potions, including some that will restore someone's body (even if using methods as indeniably evil as the one's needed in the restoration potion) > >>Instead, Dumbledore allows Voldemort to come back, betting that > *all*of the following circumstances will be true: > > > > > > 1. Voldemort won't discover some other method Dumbledore doesn't > >>know about. > > > > Dumbledore is forcefully seeking this one: he leaves a big, great > >exit door with neon-pink flashing lights on top saying "Follow me", > >so he doesn't notice the small trapdoor under his feet wich would > >make him unstopable. > > > > And that's a *good* plan - relying on the stupidity of an enemy who > is known to be extremely clever?! I'm sorry, but does that really > make sense to you? Because it sure doesn't to me. What part of the plan do you not understand, Naama? Goading someone into doing something he wants to do? Is not as if Dumbledore was trying to cut all of his options (going back to the problem #1, where he would look for a method that Dumbledore didn't think of, didn't know or couldn't counter). He is trying to have him select the one that suits Dumbledore best, and he is doing it with velvet touch. Voldemort may be intelligent, but Dumbledore is even more so, since he's got two lifetimes of experience. In any chess game, or any other competition, including war, the best strategy is always to guide your enemy through a path he already wants to take rather than block all his exits and hope he will not find the exit you didn't see: THAT would be the stupid thing to do. Goading Voldemort into the path of lest resistance is exactly what needs to be done. > > This four conditions get down to "Harry will survive", which (in my > > theory, derived from Pip's) gets a neat True/False answer: Harry > > isn't needed for Dumbledore's plan to defeat Voldemort. If he's > > killed, more's the pity, but it's a sacrifice to be done to defeat > > Voldemort. This definetely agrees with Dumbledore the Grey figure. > > I have to disagree. That makes Dumbledore Black. If Crouch Sr. is > frowned upon for allowing Unforgivables against DEs and sending > suspects to Azkaban without trial, you think that allowing an > INNOCENT boy to die (even if for a good cause) can be considered > GREY?! No. Sorry, it's bad. If Dumbledore made that cold hearted, > cold blooded choice then he is much worse than even Crouch Sr. Dumbledore is NOT omniscient. He certainly didn't see Cruch!Moody coming, and I doubt he knew about the Portkey!Cup. I don't know what his plans for the revival were, although I assume he was expecting something by then (I would've expected something during the Quidditch Final). If he had known, I repeat, he would have given Harry something more than Cedric to defend himself. Dumbledore has always taken good care of Harry, and he continues to nurture him so that he survives Voldemort, but I don't think Harry is *the* indispensable piece of the game. Harry may be the most powerful weapon that Dumbledore has against Voldemort, but he's replaceable (but not "dispensable"). I doubt Dumbledore believes he himself is indispensable, either, or any other main character we know of. Dumbledore has had 10+ years to plan this war, and I doubt his only working with an A plan: he probably has plans all the way to Z. > > > 7. After all that rigamarole, the resulting weakness in Voldemort > > > will actually be enough to ensure his defeat. > > > > That is, in fact, the basis of the plan: Dumbledore searched for a > > resurrection form that would ensure Voldemort's defeat, since it > >would the only way to have Voldy play right into his hands. Years > >back, he discussed it with Snape (and maybe a few others), and Snape > >provided the perfect formula (the one used by Voldemort). The next > >thing was, of course, dispose of all other ways of resurrection so V > >had only one option available. Since that is probably impossible, > >Dumbledore worked on making it the easiest of the best options. > >Since the easiest option was the Philosopher's Stone, he first hid > >it and then destroyed it (here we see the first sacrifice of the > >fight: Flammel, who had eons of life still in front of him). > > > If Dumbledore was as ruthless as you paint him here, he wouldn't have > hidden the stone in the first place - he would have destroyed it > immediately. And he wouldn't have waited for Flammel to agree (in > that "little chat" they had). He would have just done it, with or > without permission. When do I paint him ruthless, Naama? The fact that he doesn't destroy the stone right away, more than anything else, paints him grey: he is not going to sacrifice a single life that isn't strictly necessary. Nicolas Flamel is dead now, since he knew how to create another PS, but until Dumbledore didn't see first hand just how close Voldemort had been to getting the stone he did not decide for the easiest defence: destroy it. As always, he takes the right path before the easy one. Only when the right path takes you to the wrong path do you have to cut where it's sane to prevent the infection from spreading. > >Then, he continued to cut his other options one by one, but always > >leaving the Riddle home free (Dumbledore is the owner of the > >house "for financilal purposes"). > > > > ^-^ I've always assumed that Voldemort is the wealthy owner. If Tom > Riddle Sr. was an only child, then Tom Riddle Jr. was the only > grandson, and therefore the inheritor of the estate. The house changed hands many times in the years after their deaths, and at first people came to live there, even if they quickly left aterwards. Only in the latest years has the owner kept it without going. At first I thought of Malfoy, but I don't think he would continue to pay Frank Bryce. Only Dumbledore would do that. > > Grey Wolf, who doesn't believe in Evil!Dumbledore, but does believe > in Dumbledore the Grey, since it pairs well with his own name and > >with the other greatest magician of fantasy books: Gandalf the Grey. > > Gandalf greyness relates to rank among wizards, where the colors - > brown, grey, white - represent venerability, the colors symbolizing > wisdom and power acquired through age. It had nothing to do with > moral ambiguity. Besides, Dumbledore is 'the White' - *Albus* > Dumbledore, remember? > > Naama Without discussing this point, I was only refering to the colour similarity, nothing more, nothing less. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who was offended by Naama's post and has had to snip quite a lot of this one to prevent it from becoming a flame war. From anglinsbees at yahoo.com Wed Jun 12 12:49:44 2002 From: anglinsbees at yahoo.com (anglinsbees) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:49:44 -0000 Subject: For the Punny minded ... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39737 This came to me while writing a house elf post for the Naginis Kiss role Playing Game ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naginis_kiss/ ) If Harry Potter went searching for the room full of china that Dumbledore metioned in 'Goblet of Fire', would that story be called "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secret Pots"? Da-Da-Dum. Ok- So I thought it was funny! Ellen, A Pottering Beekeeper From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 12 13:06:09 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:06:09 -0000 Subject: Voldemorts Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39738 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > Marina wrote: > > That doesn't make sense to me. If Dumbledore could engineer it so > > that Voldemort had only one resurrection option left, then why not > > take that final step and remove the last option, too? That would > > leave Voldemort with no resurrection options at all and solve > > everybody's problems. (Well, except Voldemort's, obviously.) > > See your own #1 condition: Dumbledore couldn't risk having Voldemort > use another resurrection option. We know from PS that there are many > avilable. They must difere in quality, easiness, speed, amount of power > restored and a few other variables, but they could all restore a dying > man's body. That's my point. The theory you and Pip are backing has a major internal contradiction in it. Either Dumbledore can arrange matters to leave Voldemort with only one resurrection option, or he can't. If he can, then there's nothing stopping him from removing that last option and leaving Voldemort unresurrected. If he can't, then his whole plan depends on random chance, since he has no way of controlling which option Voldemort chooses. You can't have it both ways. The idea that Snape must've provided the resurrection spell because it's a potion is specious. Snape is neither the only nor the first potions expert in the WW. Voldemort is half a century older than Snape, was the most brilliant student at Hogwarts in his day, and has devoted his life to the study of immortality and resurrection. He doesn't need some 35-year-old pipsqueak to teach him potions, no matter how competent that pipsqueak might be. And for Snape to provide the spell we would have to assume that sometime during PoA Wormtail resumed his human form, approached Snape and got the spell from him -- a huge assumption with not a shred of canonical backing to support it. > Dumbledore is forcefully seeking this one: he leaves a big, great exit > door with neon-pink flashing lights on top saying "Follow me", He does? Where? We don't see Dumbledore do a single thing at any point that would serve to point Voldemort toward using blood of the enemy to resurrect himself. > This four conditions get down to "Harry will survive", which (in my > theory, derived from Pip's) gets a neat True/False answer: Harry isn't > needed for Dumbledore's plan to defeat Voldemort. If he's killed, > more's the pity, but it's a sacrifice to be done to defeat Voldemort. Oh, so all that "Boy Who Lived" crap we've been getting for four books is just a smokescreen? Harry is really no more important to the great scheme of things than Dennis Creevey? In that case, what was the deal with the ending of PS/SS? Harry (and we) have been led to believe that Dumbledore allowed events to happen as they did in order to prepare Harry to fight against Voldemort. But under your version, the whole thing becomes just a pointless exercise in sadism on Dumbledore's part, since there's no need for Harry to fight Voldemort at all -- Dumbledore already has a method of defeating Voldemort, a method to which Harry is utterly irrelevant. In fact, there's no need to bother with Harry at all -- no need to guide his choices, to protect him, to train him, to spend any time on him at all. Harry's just another spare, no different from Cedric, and no one wasted any time teaching Cedric how to stand up to Voldemort, did they? > This definetely agrees with Dumbledore the Grey figure. Still looks like Dumbledore the Lime Green to me. (I have arbitrarily decided that lime green is the color of stupidity.) > If you look at it the way I have exposed it, you'll see that, in fact, > there is only one variable: Yeah, if I look at it in a way that ignores four books' worth of canon, it makes perfect sense. :-) > Voldemort deciding to use another formula, > and even that has been controlled by Dumbledore since the very first > book. No, it hasn't. Dumbledore destroyed the Stone, yes. But unless the stone was the *only* other resurrection method besides the potion, Dumbledore is still in the same fix. And if the Stone *was* the only other way, then we're back to my original objection -- why not prevent Voldemort from using the potion and leave him disembodied? Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From datalaur at yahoo.com Wed Jun 12 04:58:27 2002 From: datalaur at yahoo.com (datalaur) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 04:58:27 -0000 Subject: Scabbers/Dumbledore/Forbidden Forest/Hermione's Age Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39739 Most of the names seem to have some meaning... why was "Scabbers" chosen for Peter's rat form? While I don't think Dumbledore is infallible, I can't believe that in 2+ years, he never twigged to James, Sirius and Peter's becoming Animagi. Even given that Harry is allowed to do risky things, isn't it pretty odd about that night detention in HPSS? I mean, they *know* unicorns are being killed and wouldn't they guess the blood's being drunk due to some portion of it being missing? What with the Stone at Hogwarts... Isn't it very odd that Hagrid splits them up, sending off Harry and Malfoy? Harry was in real danger of being killed... or was he? (Surely Malfoy was in no danger from his father's Master.) Was the centaur's appearance fortuitous, or was he "on guard"? This whole scene is very confusing because we are to believe in either deliberate risk-taking by Dumbledore (to what end?) or that no one could figure out why someone would be killing unicorns. Even so the Forest is very dangerous... why make 2 first years to go off on their own, in the dark, without even Hagrid's protection? Suppose they had run into Aragog or something similar? What if any is the significance of Voldemort's spirit passing thru Harry and knocking him out, in HPSS? Or was that just the movie? Sorry don't have a book handy to check. There was some discussion about the kids' age the other day. I couldn't read it all, but doesn't Hermione have to be significantly older than Harry, since he got his Hogwarts letter on his 11th birthday, which was not too long before he actually left for school? For Hermione to know all she knew, didn't she have to have a lot more time to 1) deal with the news that she was a witch and that there was a school and 2) do all that studying / learn to do spells? To me, assuming she also got her letter on her 11th birthday, she had to be at least 6 months older than Harry, if not nearly a year, to learn all that stuff. (I thought students aren't allowed to do magic outside Hogwarts... how did Hermione the Muggleborn learn to do spells - like the repair of Harry's glasses, on the train - before she came to Hogwarts? well that's enough questions for right now. I would like to hear your ideas about these areas. "datalaur" From grega126 at aol.com Wed Jun 12 02:29:36 2002 From: grega126 at aol.com (greg_a126) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 02:29:36 -0000 Subject: What *Really* is the Purpose (or nature) of Transfiguration? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39740 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "archeaologee" wrote: > This thread has got me wondering. How permenant is transfiguration? > Also the pin cusion that kept curling into a ball, that seems to suggest that it was really a hedgehog all along. > This would mean that a leaf transfigured into food would remain a > leaf, so not nourish you.... > So then this brings us right back to my original point. If a transfigured leaf still acts like a leaf & doesn't nourish you, and a pin cushion is still a hedgehog, just pretending then what is the purpose of Transfiguration? If all Transfiguration is only temporary & only changes the appearance of a thing, doesn't that make it even more useless then if you were actually creating yourself a new pin-cushion? The other suggestion that's come up is dealing w/ all of the animals may be a way to prepare those who are capable & ready to become Animagi. But is being an Animagi so incredibly valuable to the few who can do it that they would force thousands of students to learn transfiguration so that 7 of them can become Animagi legally? And if you think it's so that people can become illegal Animagi, I for one don't really see prim-and-proper McGonagall teaching a subject that's sole goal is to allow people to break the law. So again, isn't the whole subject pretty useless on the whole? Greg From grega126 at aol.com Wed Jun 12 03:11:59 2002 From: grega126 at aol.com (greg_a126) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 03:11:59 -0000 Subject: Would JKR make Lupin evil? (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39741 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" wrote: > All the posts about *evil* Lupin have scared me. I can't help feeling > a bit suspicious of one of favourite characters - that is despite all > the valiant attempts at *proving* Lupin's innocence. BUT, although I > cannot back up my argument with canon I doubt whether JKR would make > Lupin evil. > > JKR has developed a world without racism as we know it - but > nevertheless full of prejudice and bigotry. Isn't she using the likes > of Lupin and the questions of full blood etc to challenge racism, > stereotyping etc? JKR has allowed us, the reader to advance beyond > Lupin's Wizard counterparts by allowing us - through Harry - to trust > Lupin. What would she actually be saying to us if Lupin did turn out > to *be* evil? She would be saying that the WW is right to distrust > Lupin - and by inference - we are right to distrust those Lupin > represents (be they the mentally ill, the deformed, those of > different religions or ethnic backgrounds - but more simply the > misunderstood, the different ones). > Here's how I see it. The WW seems to be a very closed off bunch, not to mention extremely old fashioned. There seems to be a spectrum of people w/ their beliefs about Muggles & Muggle-born children. On one side, are people like Voldemort & the Death Eaters. On the other side are people like Albus Dumbledore, the Weasleys & the Muggle-borns themselves. Then the third group, somewhere in between, I see represented by Cornelius Fudge, MoM. The fact that he is MoM & has been for at least 4 years, implies to me that if this isn't the *largest* group, it's certainly powerful. In about 3 years, this 3rd group is going to owe their lives to the "Mudbloods & Muggle-lovers." Remus Lupin isn't just fighting in this upcoming war for himself. Remus Lupin is fighting for every other wizard & witch in the world who has been bitten by a werewolf & ostrasized from society. At the end of the war, if it turns out that he's turned on the OotP, the 3rd group's closed minded-views on werewolves are going to have to been proven correct. I for one, don't see JKR doing that. Second, b/c his name has come up as being *ever so evil*, Sirius Black is also not just fighting for himself. He is also fighting for every prisoner who may be in Azkaban unjustly. The fact that the WW was about to give him their very worst punishment w/o even a trial implies that their are centuries behind their Muggle counterparts in civil rights. It's going to be up to Sirius in a Post-Voldemort's death world to fix that. If he turns out to be evil, the WW & their closed minds turned out to have been right, they'll have no motivation to change, & again, I don't see JKR doing that. Arthur Weasley, also fits into this group. A man who has been denied the position of MoM b/c of his love of all things Muggle is going to have a major role in saving the WW. In a post-war environment, the Wizards are going to look back & realize that a man who loved all things Muggle would've made a much better Minister, than a man who took blood lines into account. In short, this war is going to force the WW to start reexamining some of their old prejudices, but that's only going to happen if the above 3 men remain loyal to the "good" side. Greg From grega126 at aol.com Wed Jun 12 06:58:35 2002 From: grega126 at aol.com (greg_a126) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 06:58:35 -0000 Subject: My Problems with "The Spying Game" (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39742 I have a ton of problems w/ this whole theory. One of the biggest is I refuse to believe that even Professor Dumbledore would be so callous with someone's life that he go out of his way to ensure that Sirius remains publicly to be believed guilty. Harry, Hermione, Buckbeak & Dumbledore aren't always going to be around with time-turners whenever they're needed. What if a group of wizards go hiking up that mountain, run into Sirius's cave to escape the rain, & come across the convicted murderer asleep. Would anyone bother to call the Headmaster of the local school? No. They'd just call the MoM, they'd call the Dementors out, & Sirius would lose his soul. They'd probably "Oh by the way..." & Dumbledore would soon find out, but then it'd be too late. If they are infact trying to arrange Voldemort's rebirth they'd need every powerful wizard (as by every indication Sirius seems to be) prepared to fight against him. Not only that, but there is more to fighting a war than just the ability to do so. I think if Sirius were to die or get his soul sucked, especially if it had happened at the end of book 3 b/c H/Hr hadn't been able to save him, Harry would be crushed. Especially so soon after finally finding a family. Harry was upset as it was that he was unable to go live w/ Sirius b/c his name wasn't free, but to not be able to live w/ Sirius b/c he had no soul left would be something else entirely. Even though he's four years older, I think the only difference that Harry would see in the Mirror of Erised is that he would now see Sirius in the mirror as well. Sirius represents Harry's only oppertunity to have a father figure. I think after all Harry has sacrificed for the good side that for Dumbledore to be responsible for Harry losing his last hope for a loving family just b/c he didn't want Harry living with Sirius during the summers is incredibly unlikely. Sirius, I'm quite sure, still feels a great amount of responsibility for the deaths of the last generation of the Potters. He admits as much when Harry first confronts him in the S. Shack. "You killed my parents,"..."I don't deny it." p. 341-342, us paperback. Dumbledore sits him down, says if you don't want to be responsible for the end of the Potter line, Harry has to stay w/ the Muggles over the summer. Who knows? W/ a freed Sirius, Dumbledore could show up on the Dursley's doorstep, wave his wand around a few times, make some sparks shoot out of his wand, & say that Harry's going to have a dog living with him until he graduates. Harry & Sirius get to live together, they're both happy, Harry's still living w/ the Muggles, so he's still save & Dumbledore's happy, & Sirius being a fully qualified wizard can spend the summer teaching Harry more magic, so he's a more powerful wizard & everyone but Voldemort is happy. You are to have us believe that Dumbledore & Snape have engineered this whole thing to try & make sure that Voldemort returns. At the end of GoF, Dumbodore says that he expected Fudges's attitude, & makes clear they need every wizard who's willing to help, yet they engineer the situation to make sure that a potentially very powerful ally cannot operate freely. As effective as Sirius tracking down the old crowd as a dog may be, I'd imagine it work much better if he could use the wand that he picked up @ Ollivander's & apperate from one house to the next, & eveyone's been contacted in one night. Now, he has to walk as a dog half-way across Great Britian, making sure no one sees him in his true form, or that no one finds him catching food. Finally, why would Dumbledore & Snape choose now? If Harry really is supposed to be the person who defeats Voldemort (it's not called Severus Snape & the Sorcerer's Stone) why would they give Voldemort his servant now, when Harry is only slightly more then halfway through his magical training? How different would that resurrection scene have been if Harry was only a few months out of Hogwarts: Harry is taken by Portkey to a graveyard. His scar starts to hurt. He says to himself, "This is a graveyard, my scar hurts, Voldemort may be around, I don't want to be here anymore." He takes out his wand & Apperates away. End of scene. I know in several of her interviews, JKR has said that those seven years of magical training are all new witches & wizards get. But really. For someone trying to take over the world, do you ever stop learning new spells? Or on the other hand, for someone whose job it is to defend the world (Dumbledore/Harry) do you ever stop learning how to defend your friends and family? Voldemort was *alive* (meaning not a ghost) and learning magic for like forty years. Or roughly tentimes the amount of time that Harry's spent learning the magical arts. If it's going to come down to Harry dfeating Voldemort, why would they not give him every advantage they could muster, and for a fourteen year old, I think one of the biggest advantages would be time. So in short, I agreed w/ a lot of the facts you used, but disagreed with the conclusion they led you to. Greg From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jun 12 15:54:36 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:54:36 -0000 Subject: Would JKR make Lupin evil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39743 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "greg_a126" wrote: >>>> Remus Lupin isn't just fighting in this upcoming war for himself. Remus Lupin is fighting for every other wizard & witch in the world who has been bitten by a werewolf & ostrasized from society. At the end of the war, if it turns out that he's turned on the OotP, the 3rd group's closed minded-views on werewolves are going to have to been proven correct. I for one, don't see JKR doing that.<<< So...if one werewolf turns out to be evil, that would mean the wizarding world is justified in mistreating all of them? So far I haven't seen the slightest hint that Remus Lupin is interested in the plight of other werewolves, so how can he be fighting for them? It also isn't necessary that Remus' treachery, if it takes place, will become common knowledge. I don't think it's necessary for Remus to be ever-so-innocent in order to show us that prejudice is harmful and self defeating. I think it's important for Remus to have flaws, and they might as well be big ones. If his only problem is that no one, including himself, recognizes his real worth, that makes him pretty much a Gary Stu (Mary Sue) character. Same profession as the author, no character defects, has a terrible secret and the heroes love him. Yawn. JKR's better than that. Greg: > In short, this war is going to force the WW to start reexamining some of their old prejudices, but that's only going to happen if the above 3 men remain loyal to the "good" side.<< I can't see our heroes turning against all werewolves even if one of them betrays them. It is their leadership, not Remus' example, good or bad, which is going to affect the attitudes of the many. Catja3000 wrote: >>I seriously doubt Lupin will turn out to be evil. His "dark secret" is his werewolfism, and while a double bluff is certainly not beyond JKR's powers (check out Aragog, for a mini-example), my gut tells me it won't happen with this character. <<< He's coming back for another book, which means JKR will be doing something to change our perception of the character. Otherwise there'd be no story. Catja3000: >>> " her overall theme is that extending understanding to those who are different brings out the good in them.<<< Interesting. Where do we see this? Understanding may allow us to *recognize* the good in someone else, which is the gist of Dumbledore's closing speech in GoF. I don't see anyone trying to "bring out the good" in someone else, except Hagrid with Norbert, and we know how that turned out. Catja3000: >>> Making Lupin turn out to be a Voldemort supporter, despite any pious cants about "bigotry made him this way," will subvert that message, as his plight is so foregrounded. It's a point that should be brought up, and JKR is doing so with Hagrid's and Maxime's mission to the giants, but the overall point is one of compassion and cooperation.<<< I think JKR can handle it. There's a precedent for a tragic, noble figure who is driven apart from his best friend by social issues, manipulated by a villain, and goaded into joining a murderous conspiracy: Brutus in Julius Caesar. Consider Fudge's conversation in The Three Broomsticks. "Potter trusted Black beyond all his other friends. Nothing changed when they left school." We're being told that James trusted Sirius more than Lupin, and that some of James' friendships must have altered after he left school. Fudge doesn't know that Pettigrew turned against James, so whom could he have meant? Only Lupin, assuming Fudge's information comes from Dumbledore and is reliable in this case. I don't think James and Sirius are prejudiced against werewolves. What happened to make them think that Lupin wasn't reliable? Why did they think he was the spy? It seems that Dumbledore could give Lupin a wizarding education, but he couldn't force the wizarding world to treat Lupin as a human being. Can't you just imagine Lupin getting the same treatment as Winky? "That's not the point of a werewolf!" and slam goes the door. There are plenty of real life examples of people who became extremists under such circumstances. Catja3000: >>> Also, and this is the kicker, JKR has said that Lupin was partially inspired by her mother, who died of MS. She has said she wanted to show how people react to disease, and the way that society shuns and fears those who are ill, and to express her anger about that unfairness. Without wading too far into intentional fallacy, I think it's safe to say that Lupin, whatever his recklessness in his youth, yada yada, was conceived a thoroughly good character. <<< "partially" eh? JKR has said Lupin is her favorite character. She's also said that out of all the teachers. Lupin is the one she'd most like to have teach her daughter...but I'm sure she doesn't mean that she wishes her daughter's teacher were a werewolf! IMO, it would be just like JKR to lay on about how wonderful Lupin is if she were planning to pull something. She likes to talk about how nasty Snape is, and that he's a horrible teacher. If the mean ugly schnook who's a terrible teacher is on Dumbledore's side, whose side is Mr. Nice Guy on? One more bit of evidence: as the gang was leaving the Shrieking Shack, Lupin "picked up the Invisibility Cloak and tucked it safely into his pocket." That shows a strange presence of mind for someone who supposedly has forgotten to take his potion, forgotten to deactivate the Map in his office, and forgotten that *he is about to turn into a werewolf* . The narrative purpose can't be just to get the cloak out of the way so Timeturned!Harry can't use it. That would have been accomplished just as well by leaving the cloak in the shack, which was my mistaken impression from previous readings. What was going on? Pippin From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Jun 12 15:54:26 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:54:26 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39744 *Voldemort* ----------- Marina wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > Marina wrote: > > > That doesn't make sense to me. If Dumbledore could engineer it > > > so that Voldemort had only one resurrection option left, then why > > > not take that final step and remove the last option, too? That > > > would leave Voldemort with no resurrection options at all and > > > solve everybody's problems. (Well, except Voldemort's, > > > obviously.) > > > > See your own #1 condition: Dumbledore couldn't risk having > > Voldemort use another resurrection option. We know from PS that > > there are many avilable. They must difere in quality, easiness, > > speed, amount of power restored and a few other variables, but they > > could all restore a dying man's body. > > That's my point. The theory you and Pip are backing has a major > internal contradiction in it. Either Dumbledore can arrange matters > to leave Voldemort with only one resurrection option, or he can't. > If he can, then there's nothing stopping him from removing that last > option and leaving Voldemort unresurrected. If he can't, then his > whole plan depends on random chance, since he has no way of > controlling which option Voldemort chooses. You can't have it both > ways. > > Dumbledore destroyed the Stone, yes. But unless the > stone was the *only* other resurrection method besides the potion, > Dumbledore is still in the same fix. And if the Stone *was* the only > other way, then we're back to my original objection -- why not > prevent Voldemort from using the potion and leave him disembodied? > > Marina I feel like if gone through this twice already, but I'm not the one to back away from something, so here I go (yet) again: I believe that there are many options available to recuperate Voldemort's body. They come in a variable degree of dificulty, but several do exist. Most of them will give back Voldemort enough power to start winning again, and some will not, being flawed in one way or another. Unicorn blood, for example, is flawed, since he has to drink it continually. The PS was NOT flawed, and that was why the Unicorn's blood was only interim preparation. Let's suppose *for the sake of an example* that other perfectly valid forms include an enchanted dishwasher and the egg of some odd bird (pick one at random form FB, if you want). Now, Dumbledore and the old gang had a long talk after Voldemort's fall and put together as many heads as possible trying to now what his enemy would do. They came up with a number of possible solutions to his problems, both flawed and not flawed. But they were greatly amazed to discover one method that, while indeed flawed, at first glance it did not seem to be so: the infamous potion. A plan was formed: to gently guide Voldemort into using that potion, and started to act on it. They took Flamel's stone and put it into a security vault. They passed laws against enchanted dishwashers. They look up all the strange birds and control them through different organizations (if the bird was, for example, a dragon, we know they are tightly controled). And they continue to restrict his options so that the *easiest* solution to Voldemort's problems is the flawed potion. However, it is impossible to reduce all options to zero. It would still be possible to enchant a dishwasher, or look for the bird in some long-forgotten place, or whatever. The total control implied in "arranging matters to leave Voldemort with only one option" is totally impossible. There is always the element of chance, too many variables, etc. to make this plausible. Dumbledore can eliminate some of the options almost completely, but if the option exists, it will always exist (Voldemort could re-invent the PS, couldn't he? It's already been done once. It's not as if there was the doubt of whether it was possbile, would it?) There is still an element of gambit here, of course: that Voldemort decides to use any other form of recuperation spell (for example, having Wormtail enchant a dishwasher). And he would have used any other of the options if Dumbledore had had Riddle Sr.'s bones hidden. But by keeping that option open and easily available, Voldemort was guided into using it, before any other. Which was, of course, what Dumbledore had planned, so the gambit is not so great after all. There are no absolutes in life, Marina. There is always the chance that something will go horribly wrong (as Voldemort himself discovered). Two people already have claimed that this is impossible. However, I've seen it used many times in chess (normally against me), and military history is full of these tactics, so I can't see that objection. Marina claims too that there is internal inconsistency. I see none, not even with her pointing at it, and I hoipe this served to clear the waters. if not, I'll be around to keep repeating myself over and aover again. *Snape* ------- > The idea that Snape must've provided the resurrection spell because > it's a potion is specious. Snape is neither the only nor the first > potions expert in the WW. Voldemort is half a century older than > Snape, was the most brilliant student at Hogwarts in his day, and has > devoted his life to the study of immortality and resurrection. He > doesn't need some 35-year-old pipsqueak to teach him potions, no > matter how competent that pipsqueak might be. And for Snape to > provide the spell we would have to assume that sometime during PoA > Wormtail resumed his human form, approached Snape and got the spell > from him -- a huge assumption with not a shred of canonical backing > to support it. I don't know what "specious" means, and I'm getting tired of being accussed of uncanonity, but I think I get the idea. Anyway, there is no need, Snape could've told Voldemort about the potion much earlier than that: during his reign of Terror, when he was still a loyal DE. I don't think Voldemort listened to closely, though, since it's a potion that, at the time, didn't interest him, since it does not grant inmortality, just mortality (which he already had). We don't know if Snape is the foremost expert in the field, but it is besides the point. It's the expert Voldemort had. Just because he's old it doesn't mean that he knows about everything. My grandfather was one of the most knowledged men I've known. He developed, without any use of a computer, one of the fundmental equations of chaos theory that is still used in weather-pattern prediction today. Yet I am hardly 20 and know more than he ever did about computers, and he accepted my help whenever he needed someone to explain him what the strange symbols that popped up in the old computer he used. Snape may be young, but he knows a lot of potions that could've helped Voldemort. It's entirely possible that Snape learnt most of them when he became a DE under the express orders of Voldemort himself, but we're talking of Severus "Knows more curses at eleven than a seventh year" Snape, so I assume that he had lots of time in school to learn about them from the forbidden section (which I imagine he could get access to through his own head-of-house). I do believe that Snape told Voldemort but, as I've said, it's besides the point. If Voldemort is as intelligent as you put him, he must have surely heard of the potion. What's important is that Voldemort didn't know the potion well enough to know it's flaw, and I think that, *if* we agree that there is a major flaw, Voldemort is unaware of it (and stand to reason, since he was not an expert in potions, but in being inmortal, and as I've said, the potion does not confer inmortality, just mortality, the exact opposite of what he was looking for). *Harry* ------- > Oh, so all that "Boy Who Lived" crap we've been getting for four > books is just a smokescreen? Harry is really no more important to > the great scheme of things than Dennis Creevey? In that case, what > was the deal with the ending of PS/SS? Harry (and we) have been led > to believe that Dumbledore allowed events to happen as they did in > order to prepare Harry to fight against Voldemort. But under your > version, the whole thing becomes just a pointless exercise in sadism > on Dumbledore's part, since there's no need for Harry to fight > Voldemort at all -- Dumbledore already has a method of defeating > Voldemort, a method to which Harry is utterly irrelevant. In fact, > there's no need to bother with Harry at all -- no need to guide his > choices, to protect him, to train him, to spend any time on him at > all. Harry's just another spare, no different from Cedric, and no > one wasted any time teaching Cedric how to stand up to Voldemort, did > they? If you've got an A plan, and a B plan, and a C plan, and... , you try to have the A plan work, since normally the rest of the plans are nowhere as easy or sure. Harry is part of D's A plan, so to speak, but I hope that Dumbledore is not stupid enough to lay all the future of countless of beings on the hands of an eleven year old. The easiest way to defeat Voldemort passes through Harry, but there must be other ways. The main one is already shacky, I'd hate to see the rest of the options (which we will never see, since we all know that D' A plan is going to work, but that doesn't mean that they do not exist). Going back to the old resource of examples, let's say you've got a fly in your house that you want to kill. You can use several methods to get rid of it: open windows in the hope it leaves, use a spray can, use a fly-swatter, blow your house into smitherins, whatever. You start out using the one you think will work best with the minimun of colateral damage, and if that one fails, you continue with the rest of the ideas you get, which probably are nowhere as good, even if they do get results. Harry *is* important. He's a great weapon against Voldemort (even though we don't yet know why), and Dumbledore is educating him so he can destroy Voldemort. But if the unexpected occours, and Harry's suddenly teleported into an old graveyard where a handful of DEs are waiting and Harry is blasted into little bits, I hope Dumbledore has a B plan ready isntead of simply accepting defeat. *We* know that Harry is not going to die before the end of book seven, but that's metathinking, and Dumbledore cannot do it. In real life, there is no such opportunity. In a war, generals learn to accept their loses, but still train their men so that they have the greatest probablity of surviving. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Wed Jun 12 16:18:31 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:18:31 -0000 Subject: Hagrid *Will* Mess Up (a bit long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39745 Jenny from Ravenclaw asked: <> I'll second her time bomb vote. Jenny's evidence: <<<*In SS, Hagrid is directly responsible for Harry's unpleasant confrontation with Voldemort. If Hagrid hadn't so blindly trusted a stranger in the Leaky Cauldron and fessed up about Fluffy, Quirrel and mini-Voldy would never have been waiting for Hagrid by the mirror. Hagrid has a big mouth and too much of a blind spot when it comes to "interestin' creatures". He was so eager to raise a baby dragon, he didn't stop to think about the odd circumstances of being given one. His Norbert escapades also caused Harry and friends to get in trouble, while Hagrid himself got off scot-free.>>> Me: Oh yeah. And what bothers me most, for some reason, is that last part; that Hagrid, an employee of the school, let eleven-year-old Harry & Co. take all the blame for smuggling that dragon out. All those house points they lost. All those weeks when no-one would speak to Harry. *glares at Hagrid for causing her Harry problems* <<<*In SS again, Hagrid, while responsible for Harry in Diagon Alley, goes to get a drink when Harry goes to try on robes. Call me crazy, but a man who is supposed to be watching a ten year old boy shouldn't go off and have a drink - or two. More on this later.>>> Me: Nope, you're not crazy. Not just any kid either, but *Harry Potter,* walking target of evil. Oh, I know Voldy's not in body form at this point, but Hagrid himself says he figures he's coming back. *And* Hagrid's involved with secret Hogwart's business at the time?getting the Stone from Gringotts?the Stone that could bring Voldemort back. <<>> Me: Yup, I think all these mentions of Hagrid's drinking are bound to be setting us up for something. Sure, we see other teachers enjoying a glass of mead or what-have-you at special events. But he's the only one we see drunk, I think, and drinking so often. Bernadette raised some interesting points, laying blame at Dumbledore's door as well: <<>> snip <<>> Me: You know, that's very true. In his zeal for providing second chances, Dumbledore does seem to give Hagrid more responsibility than he's really ready for. Making that "I would trust Hagrid with my life," quote all the more chilling . Bernadette again: <<>> Me: And he wasn't even the most responsible 13-year-old, was he? Hatching Aragog and all I wonder if Dumbledore really has so much faith in Hagrid, or is he just dealing with regret and self- recrimination over not truly realizing what Tom Riddle was? Harry & Co. seemed to have passed Hagrid in the maturity department already, IMHO, but they're not the ones being given all this responsibility and being trusted with all these secrets. I *want* to like Hagrid, because he loves Harry, and that's a big plus in my book but I can't really do it I find myself reading his scenes with dread. I looked up the symbolism of his name, to see if it gave any clues. As Rubeus, he's named after the ruby... the stone that supposedly banishes sorrow, and is good for the heart, brain, and memory. Which fits his relationship with Harry well, but doesn't give many hints to his future.. Caroline, guiltily hoping Hagrid is the `terrible death to write', and that it happens before he causes Harry too much trouble From marilyn at gtf.org Wed Jun 12 15:35:52 2002 From: marilyn at gtf.org (jedi102580) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:35:52 -0000 Subject: Forbidden Forest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39746 datalaur wrote: > Harry was in real danger of being killed... or was > he? (Surely Malfoy was in no danger from his father's Master.) Was > the centaur's appearance fortuitous, or was he "on guard"? This > whole scene is very confusing because we are to believe in either > deliberate risk-taking by Dumbledore (to what end?) or that no one > could figure out why someone would be killing unicorns. Even so > the Forest is very dangerous... why make 2 first years to go off on > their own, in the dark, without even Hagrid's protection? Suppose > they had run into Aragog or something similar? For one, they are told to stay on the path, and there is an implied possibility that the more dangerous creatures of the forest will tend to avoid the paths. We certainly know that Aragog would not be on the path, particularly when Harry and Draco are carrying a lantern. In addition, although Fang is said to be a coward, there is mention of the fact that nothing in the forest will hurt Hagrid or people who are with him; perhaps this applies to Fang, as well. Thirdly, is it definite that Hagrid even confirmed the trip with Dumbledore? We know Hagrid to be somewhat optimistic regarding the dangers that some creatures may possess. Granted, he knows that a creature must be very evil to kill a unicorn, but he may expect that such a creature would be very far from a vital and healthy state, and would lay low, and certainly have no reason to attack 11-year-old children. Finally, I don't believe that Harry could have been killed. Voldemort does not even have a physical form at this point, and the worst that could have happened is the type of formless attack that occured in the dungeon, with the stone: an attack that I dare say would not have even put Harry into such a precarious state if it weren't for the fact that he had just been using all the power in his body to repel the touch of Quirrell/Voldemort. -- marilyn [sorry so long-- double apologies on the fact that we're both newbies, and I'm sure this has been discussed many times before...] From kerelsen at quik.com Wed Jun 12 17:09:21 2002 From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:09:21 -0400 Subject: Forbidden Forest/Hermione's Age References: Message-ID: <008201c21233$e67737c0$1d21b0d8@kerelsen> No: HPFGUIDX 39747 ----- Original Message ----- From: "datalaur" > Even given that Harry is allowed to do risky things, isn't it pretty > odd about that night detention in HPSS? I mean, they *know* unicorns > are being killed and wouldn't they guess the blood's being drunk due > to some portion of it being missing? Well, did they do an autopsy on the beast to determine how much blood was taken? I doubt it. And I doubt that Hagrid knows about the darker uses of unicorn blood... after all, he only got into his Third year... >What with the Stone at > Hogwarts... Isn't it very odd that Hagrid splits them up, sending off > Harry and Malfoy? Harry was in real danger of being killed... or was > he? (Surely Malfoy was in no danger from his father's Master.) Was > the centaur's appearance fortuitous, or was he "on guard"? I kind of like the idea that the Firenze was on guard, but I think the splitting up thing comes from a misjudgement by Hagrid... I don't think that Hagrid can be a good judge of a level of danger to the kids... Hagrid made a mistake by splitting them up like that, assuming that all would be okay as long as there were at least two of them together. Frankly, I think that Malfoy's cutting and running was the smartest thing he does in the entire book. I kept thinking, "For God's sake, Harry, get to your feet and MOVE!" during that whole sequence. >This > whole scene is very confusing because we are to believe in either > deliberate risk-taking by Dumbledore (to what end?) or that no one > could figure out why someone would be killing unicorns. Even so the > Forest is very dangerous... why make 2 first years to go off on their > own, in the dark, without even Hagrid's protection? Suppose they had > run into Aragog or something similar? Again, Hagrid feels safe with Aragog, and his size and bulk make creatures less of a threat to him... he's just not able to really see that others aren't so "fortunate." (see the recent posts about Hagrid trusting too much and his innate lack of common sense and caution.) > What if any is the significance of Voldemort's spirit passing thru > Harry and knocking him out, in HPSS? Or was that just the movie? > Sorry don't have a book handy to check. Hmmm. I don't recall it being in the book, although it was a cool scene... My impression was that it was a last ditch attempt by Voldie to try to kill Harry... the implication of the shot of Harry holding the Philosopher's stone is that if he hadn't been holding it, he probably would have died from Voldie passing through him... Since Harry fainted in the book as Quirrell pulled away from him, we don't actually know what the spirit Voldie may or may not have done to him. It would be interesting to see if the idea for that bit in the film was a director's/scriptwriter's idea, or something given to them by JKR herself... > There was some discussion about the kids' age the other day. I > couldn't read it all, but doesn't Hermione have to be significantly > older than Harry, since he got his Hogwarts letter on his 11th > birthday, which was not too long before he actually left for school? Actually, his first letter arrived at least a week before he turned 11. For all we know, all the letters were sent out at that time to all the children scheduled to attend that fall. Just because he didn't actually get to hang onto the letter until Hagrid delivered that last one to him directly on his birthday, doesn't mean that it proves that Hermione got her notification the day she turned eleven. > For Hermione to know all she knew, didn't she have to have a lot more > time to 1) deal with the news that she was a witch and that there was > a school and 2) do all that studying / learn to do spells? To me, > assuming she also got her letter on her 11th birthday, she had to be > at least 6 months older than Harry, if not nearly a year, to learn > all that stuff. According to books, Hermione's birthday is in September, and specifically, September 19th according to an interview by JKR... but she didn't give the year. (See the HP Lexicon). I, personally, feel that Hermione is nearly 12 by the time she actually attends Hogwarts, but there are as many arguments against it as for it. See the Lexicon for an interesting essay on the subject... I don't necessarily agree with its conclusions, but it's a well written piece. I can't fairly compare her emotional/mental/physical maturity with mine at that age because I was a horribly late bloomer... I had Hermione-like brains, but no emotional control and people assumed I was two or three years younger than I really was because of my physical development at the time. Going by what I'm seeing of my daughter's classmates, that was well outside the norm (and may have contributed to many of my Hermione-like behaviors during my teens!) Emma Watson was younger than the other child actors and Hermione in the film appears younger than the others, but that isn't the proof we need. The books just don't say and all I have to go with is my gut feeling. ><(I thought students aren't allowed to do magic > outside Hogwarts... how did Hermione the Muggleborn learn to do > spells - like the repair of Harry's glasses, on the train - before > she came to Hogwarts? Well, I'm of the opinion that she headed to Diagon Alley for her books the moment she got her letter and read them thoroughly. Perhaps she asked permission to "practice" in private, away from other Muggle eyes. Maybe the Underage magic rule doesn't actually affect the Muggleborns until they've attended school... any practicing might have been registered with the MOM as "accidental" magic... We really don't know, though, since we don't know the procedures that the Wizard world has for introducing the Muggleborns into their new heritage. I'm sure all of this has been covered in the past on this list, but it's nice to look at them again to see if there are any new fresh perspectives brought in by the newer members of the list. Bernadette "Life's greatest happiness is to be convinced we are loved." - Victor Hugo, Les Miserables, 1862 From aiz24 at hotmail.com Wed Jun 12 17:06:14 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:06:14 -0400 Subject: Nature of Transfiguration/Poor Wizards Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39748 James wrote: >Also the pin cusion that kept curling into a ball, that seems to >suggest that it was really a hedgehog all along. No, I think it signifies incomplete transfiguration. McGonagall is criticizing Dean at the time; the point of the comment is that this is an object that is supposed to now be completely inanimate and be unafraid of pins like a good pincushion should be , but instead it still has hedgehog characteristics. It can't be used as an example of what is *supposed* to happen in Transfiguration. Greg wrote: >So then this brings us right back to my original point. If a >transfigured leaf still acts like a leaf & doesn't nourish you, and >a pin cushion is still a hedgehog, just pretending then what is the >purpose of Transfiguration? If all Transfiguration is only >temporary & only changes the appearance of a thing, doesn't that >make it even more useless then if you were actually creating >yourself a new pin-cushion? I do think transfigurations are permanent for this reason. What are the main reasons we propose otherwise? (1) Animal rights, which, let's face it, JKR and the WW are not greatly concerned with, so I think we can answer that objection very simply: the hedgehog ceases to be a hedgehog and turns into a pincushion, just like you and I will one day cease to be human beings and turn into compost. Those of us who find inflicting this on a hedgehog to be ethically questionable will have to take it up with PETA, 'cause the MOM doesn't care. (2) The Weasleys and Lupin attest to the fact that there is such a thing as a powerful but poor wizard; one apparently cannot transfigure unlimited quantities of dirt into Galleons or useful food or Floo powder or new robes. That's the tough one, IMO. Caius Marcius took a good whack at it (he writes filks! he quotes Shakespeare! he solves major enigmae of the wizarding world via conservative political theory!) and his piece is on the Lexicon. http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/magic_theory1.html Other possibilities are that one needs "money in the bank" in some way in order to transfigure worthless items into valuable ones. Perhaps Galleons literally disappear from one's Gringotts vault each time one conjures up the items on one's grocery list. A possibility I prefer is that the "bank" is one of magical power, and so one saps one's energy each time one conjures something out of thin air or transfigures it out of something of less worth. Families could have accumulations of this magical capital, so that even though Arthur Weasley is as powerful a wizard in his own right as Lucius Malfoy, the latter has a family fortune to draw upon and can just keep on conjuring up polo Pegasuses or whatever else his spoiled family desires. Sigh...not a very satisfactory solution, I know. When's JKR going to do another chat? Let's put "Why don't the Weasleys just Transfigure what they need out of the dirt in the backyard?" top on the questions list. Amy Z _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 12 17:11:02 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:11:02 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39749 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > *Voldemort* > I feel like if gone through this twice already, but I'm not the one to > back away from something, so here I go (yet) again: Hey, if we weren't all willing to repeat ourselves ten times on every point, we'd have to come up with new things to talk about practically every day, and that would way too much work. There's a lot of time to kill until OoP. > > I believe that there are many options available to recuperate > Voldemort's body. They come in a variable degree of dificulty, but > several do exist. Most of them will give back Voldemort enough power to > start winning again, and some will not, being flawed in one way or > another. Unicorn blood, for example, is flawed, since he has to drink > it continually. The PS was NOT flawed, and that was why the Unicorn's > blood was only interim preparation. > > Let's suppose *for the sake of an example* that other perfectly valid > forms include an enchanted dishwasher and the egg of some odd bird > (pick one at random form FB, if you want). > A plan was formed: to gently guide Voldemort into using that potion, > and started to act on it. They took Flamel's stone and put it into a > security vault. They passed laws against enchanted dishwashers. They > look up all the strange birds and control them through different > organizations (if the bird was, for example, a dragon, we know they are > tightly controled). And they continue to restrict his options so that > the *easiest* solution to Voldemort's problems is the flawed potion. > That would be fine if we actually saw this being done, or heard about it being done, or at least observed some mysterious unexplained events which, when viewed with perfect hindsight at the end of GoF, could be recognized as part of Dumbledore's energetic anti-dishwasher campaign. But I don't remember any such things in any of the books. We have point A: destruction of the Stone, and point Q: Voldemort resurrects himself with a potion three books later. (I'm not calling it point Z, 'cause that would be the end of book 7.) We don't know how Voldemort got from A to Q, and I think that assuming Dumbledore must've led him there is an awfully shaky proposition. > *Snape* > ------- > > Anyway, there is no > need, Snape could've told Voldemort about the potion much earlier than > that: during his reign of Terror, when he was still a loyal DE. I don't > think Voldemort listened to closely, though, since it's a potion that, > at the time, didn't interest him, since it does not grant inmortality, > just mortality (which he already had). You're right, Snape could've told him back then. I withdraw that particular objection. > *Harry* > ------- > > > Oh, so all that "Boy Who Lived" crap we've been getting for four > > books is just a smokescreen? Harry is really no more important to > > the great scheme of things than Dennis Creevey? In that case, what > > was the deal with the ending of PS/SS? Harry (and we) have been led > > to believe that Dumbledore allowed events to happen as they did in > > order to prepare Harry to fight against Voldemort. But under your > > version, the whole thing becomes just a pointless exercise in sadism > > on Dumbledore's part, since there's no need for Harry to fight > > Voldemort at all -- Dumbledore already has a method of defeating > > Voldemort, a method to which Harry is utterly irrelevant. In fact, > > there's no need to bother with Harry at all -- no need to guide his > > choices, to protect him, to train him, to spend any time on him at > > all. Harry's just another spare, no different from Cedric, and no > > one wasted any time teaching Cedric how to stand up to Voldemort, did > > they? > > If you've got an A plan, and a B plan, and a C plan, and... , you try > to have the A plan work, since normally the rest of the plans are > nowhere as easy or sure. Harry is part of D's A plan, so to speak, but > I hope that Dumbledore is not stupid enough to lay all the future of > countless of beings on the hands of an eleven year old. Having a Plan A and a Plan B is certainly good, but isn't it kind of silly to have a Plan B that recklessly endangers the most vital element of Plan A, and then to try and execute Plan B while Plan A is still in the early preparation stages? To use your housefly example, if my Plan A is to shoo the fly out the window, and my Plan B is to shut the windows and fumigate the house, I'm not going to shut the windows and then try to shoo the fly out. Yet that's exactly what Dumbledore would be doing if he deliberately engineered Wormtail's escape at the end of PoA in order to facilitate Voldemort's resurrection. At the time of PoA, Plan A is going just fine. Harry is alive and well; he has defeated Quirrel and Tom Riddle; he's learning and growing and showing every sign of becoming the hero Dumbledore needs. So why would Dumbledore suddenly decide to kick off Plan B *now*? Why not wait and see how Harry does instead of jumping the gun and facilitating Voldemort's return at a time when Harry's still young and not fully trained? Dumbledore could spend the extra time chasing down any stray dishwashers he may have missed. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Jun 12 18:03:23 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:03:23 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39750 Marina wrote: > Hey, if we weren't all willing to repeat ourselves ten times on every > point, we'd have to come up with new things to talk about practically > every day, and that would way too much work. There's a lot of time > to kill until OoP. Point accepted. > That would be fine if we actually saw this being done, or heard about > it being done, or at least observed some mysterious unexplained > events which, when viewed with perfect hindsight at the end of GoF, > could be recognized as part of Dumbledore's energetic anti-dishwasher > campaign. But I don't remember any such things in any of the books. > We have point A: destruction of the Stone, and point Q: Voldemort > resurrects himself with a potion three books later. (I'm not calling > it point Z, 'cause that would be the end of book 7.) We don't know > how Voldemort got from A to Q, and I think that assuming Dumbledore > must've led him there is an awfully shaky proposition. But when you couple it with Pip's theory, it really starts to gain some weight. It really fits what we know of Dumbledore's actions, and is not such an increadible feat to suppose that he has been 10 years pursuing a plan to get rid of Voldemort, when everyone thought he was dead, and had to do so without anyone noticing *in either side*: not the MoM, not Voldemort. > > *Snape* > > ------- > > > > Anyway, there is no > > need, Snape could've told Voldemort about the potion much earlier > than > > that: during his reign of Terror, when he was still a loyal DE. I > don't > > think Voldemort listened to closely, though, since it's a potion > that, > > at the time, didn't interest him, since it does not grant > inmortality, > > just mortality (which he already had). > > You're right, Snape could've told him back then. I withdraw that > particular objection. I'm happy! One of my arguments was actually accepted! (It's the bad thing of this list. When someone come up with a great argument, anyone who agrees just shuts up, so you never know whether you impressed them or they just plain didn't care. Since the only people who write are the one's who oppose you, you always feel accused. Ah, well, it forms character, if nothing else) > Having a Plan A and a Plan B is certainly good, but isn't it kind of > silly to have a Plan B that recklessly endangers the most vital > element of Plan A, and then to try and execute Plan B while Plan A is > still in the early preparation stages? To use your housefly example, > if my Plan A is to shoo the fly out the window, and my Plan B is to > shut the windows and fumigate the house, I'm not going to shut the > windows and then try to shoo the fly out. Yet that's exactly what > Dumbledore would be doing if he deliberately engineered Wormtail's > escape at the end of PoA in order to facilitate Voldemort's > resurrection. At the time of PoA, Plan A is going just fine. Harry > is alive and well; he has defeated Quirrel and Tom Riddle; he's > learning and growing and showing every sign of becoming the hero > Dumbledore needs. So why would Dumbledore suddenly decide to kick > off Plan B *now*? Why not wait and see how Harry does instead of > jumping the gun and facilitating Voldemort's return at a time when > Harry's still young and not fully trained? Dumbledore could spend > the extra time chasing down any stray dishwashers he may have missed. > > Marina No, I think you're looking at it the wrong way around (although we'll have to wait for Pip's essay on the graveyard scene of GoF before seing how *she* ties it up with her previous theory), but the way *I* see it, having Wormtail scape furthers both plan A (having someone with a life debt to Harry close to Voldemort) and plan B (having Voldemort take a flawed potion). We also know *from canon* that plan A was at a standstill by now: Voldemort couldn't touch Harry, but Harry couldn't kill Voldemort while in his shadow form, only his vessel. It has been argued before in the list that having Voldemort return to a mortal body is good, since it makes possible his death (when before, in his shadow form, he was inmortal. Powerless, yes, but inmortal... I'm sounding like Ollivander now...). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf who, if he had known his Dishwasher was going to be so liked, would have started on an acronym with dishwasher on it right away. After all, it's already got D for Dumbledore, so it's got possibilities. Also he who has supposed Pip is a girl name, based on the apparent female number supperiority in the list, and who is deeply sorry is this is not the case. From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 12 18:49:53 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:49:53 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39751 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > > That would be fine if we actually saw this being done, or heard about > > it being done, or at least observed some mysterious unexplained > > events which, when viewed with perfect hindsight at the end of GoF, > > could be recognized as part of Dumbledore's energetic anti-dishwasher > > campaign. But I don't remember any such things in any of the books. > > We have point A: destruction of the Stone, and point Q: Voldemort > > resurrects himself with a potion three books later. (I'm not calling > > it point Z, 'cause that would be the end of book 7.) We don't know > > how Voldemort got from A to Q, and I think that assuming Dumbledore > > must've led him there is an awfully shaky proposition. > > But when you couple it with Pip's theory, it really starts to gain some > weight. It really fits what we know of Dumbledore's actions, and is not > such an increadible feat to suppose that he has been 10 years pursuing > a plan to get rid of Voldemort, when everyone thought he was dead, and > had to do so without anyone noticing *in either side*: not the MoM, not > Voldemort. Actually, I'd find it a bit more believable if you *didn't* couple it with Pip's theory. I can see Dumbledore working to eliminate ways in which Voldemort might come back. I can even see him looking at the potion possibility and saying, "Well, this one's not as bad as the others, I'll worry about the others first." It's the idea that Dumbledore deliberately engineered the events in PoA to happen as they did in order to *ensure* Voldemort's return at a time when he was harmlessly wafting around the Albanian wilderness that I get stuck on. > > > > *Snape* > > > ------- > > You're right, Snape could've told him back then. I withdraw that > > particular objection. > > I'm happy! One of my arguments was actually accepted! Hey, never let it be said I can't concede a point. > > Having a Plan A and a Plan B is certainly good, but isn't it kind of > > silly to have a Plan B that recklessly endangers the most vital > > element of Plan A, and then to try and execute Plan B while Plan A is > > still in the early preparation stages? To use your housefly example, > > if my Plan A is to shoo the fly out the window, and my Plan B is to > > shut the windows and fumigate the house, I'm not going to shut the > > windows and then try to shoo the fly out. Yet that's exactly what > > Dumbledore would be doing if he deliberately engineered Wormtail's > > escape at the end of PoA in order to facilitate Voldemort's > > resurrection. At the time of PoA, Plan A is going just fine. Harry > > is alive and well; he has defeated Quirrel and Tom Riddle; he's > > learning and growing and showing every sign of becoming the hero > > Dumbledore needs. So why would Dumbledore suddenly decide to kick > > off Plan B *now*? Why not wait and see how Harry does instead of > > jumping the gun and facilitating Voldemort's return at a time when > > Harry's still young and not fully trained? Dumbledore could spend > > the extra time chasing down any stray dishwashers he may have missed. > > > > Marina > > No, I think you're looking at it the wrong way around (although we'll > have to wait for Pip's essay on the graveyard scene of GoF before seing > how *she* ties it up with her previous theory), but the way *I* see it, > having Wormtail scape furthers both plan A (having someone with a life > debt to Harry close to Voldemort) and plan B (having Voldemort take a > flawed potion). We also know *from canon* that plan A was at a > standstill by now: Voldemort couldn't touch Harry, but Harry couldn't > kill Voldemort while in his shadow form, only his vessel. Yeah, but where's the bad in that? Let them stay at a standstill until Harry is grown. There's no rush. Plan B could just as easily have been carried out in twenty years. The Elder Riddle's bones aren't going anywhere, after all. Instead, Harry gets forced into battle while still a half-trained child. And for what? Wormtail's life-debt strikes me as a pretty dubious benefit when weighed against the risks. James Potter had a life-debt from Snape, who's way more competent than Wormtail, and where did it get him? > Grey Wolf who, if he had known his Dishwasher was going to be so liked, > would have started on an acronym with dishwasher on it right away. Oooh, ooh, I can do this! MAGIC DISHWASHER: Myseterious Agendas Generate Interesting Conclusion: Dumbledore Is Secretely Hatching Ways to Assure Superiority for Harry in the Emerging Resolution Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From marilyn at gtf.org Wed Jun 12 17:30:33 2002 From: marilyn at gtf.org (jedi102580) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:30:33 -0000 Subject: Nature of Transfiguration/Poor Wizards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39752 Amy Z wrote: > (2) The Weasleys and Lupin attest to the fact that there is such a > thing as a powerful but poor wizard; one apparently cannot > transfigure unlimited quantities of dirt into Galleons or useful > food or Floo powder or new robes. > That's the tough one, IMO. Caius Marcius took a good whack at it > (he writes filks! he quotes Shakespeare! he solves major enigmae of > the wizarding world via conservative political theory!) and his > piece is on the Lexicon. In reading the piece, I was struck by the fact that one thing that shows up repeatedly as an item people covet and yet cannot create with Transfiguration is a broomstick. But we know from QTA that broomsticks have any number of (possibly?) complicated spells on them, particularly including the newest and nicest ones. We can surmise from Hagrid's claim that it is powerful dark magic to alter a broomstick that creating one with the magic it should possess could be just as complex. Along those lines, wouldn't it be possible to place some sort of magic on wizard coins which served as a counterfeiting check? Just like in the Muggle world, it is possible to create counterfeit bills, but there have been many efforts to prevent this from happening, and it is such a serious crime, not many people take the effort to try and get around all the particulars. This doesn't help very much in the question of altering low- quality/old things to nice new ones, but it's quite a likely possibility at least regarding actual currency, imo. -- marilyn From editor at texas.net Wed Jun 12 19:18:14 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:18:14 -0500 Subject: Two clarifications, was Re: Voldemorts Resurrection WAS loads of other things References: Message-ID: <001501c21245$e7bd9540$517c63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39753 Grey Wolf held forth: > "The potion that has revived me tonight is an old treasure of dark > magic" > Snape is a grand master of potions, and we know that he knows dark > magic potions: the polyjuice potion is in the dark arts section, so it > is a dark art potion itself. It is not impossible to believe that Snape > suggested the potion to Voldemort at some point in the past. In fact, > it is very probable, especially if Snape was of the inner circle: > Voldemort would have used him to advance his search on inmortality > methods. We know Snape probably knows of this potion, in fact. That, or > there are so many other methods to "stopper death" that I should simply > rest my case. First point--English usage. I would like to clarify those particular words "stopper death." This is not an antique or quaint way of saying "stop" death. In fact, they clarified it in the movie script, probably for this very reason, although it damaged the flow of the speech irreparably ('put a stopper in death,' indeed). To "stopper death" is to put death in a bottle; it's a poetic way of saying "to put death in a bottle and put the stopper in." Stopper = the cork, the thing on top of the bottle. So everything else in your argument aside (which I haven't been following too closely), Snape is not saying he knows (or can teach) how to *stop death*, he is saying he knows (and can teach) how to make deadly poisons. Even if he knows anything about immortality potions, he's not talking about them here. Okay? Second point, spotted as I re-read over this one. And LOON that I am, it must be corrected. The book from whence came the Polyjuice Potion was from the Restricted Section. NOT the dark arts section. I do not think Restricted necessarily equals Dark; in all likelihood, plenty of non-Dark spells are simply too complicated for the younger students to have access to. That said, I therfore don't think you can call the Polyjuice Potion a "dark art potion." --Amanda From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Wed Jun 12 19:26:46 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:26:46 -0000 Subject: The Spying Game Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39754 Back again! Porphyria is right, I did retire exhausted [grin]. Debbie writes: Pip wrote: > >It's Hermione who takes action here: she suggests that Snape > >listens to their side of the story. And Snape tells her to shut > >up in no uncertain terms. I'll discuss his very interesting > > terminology later on. Debbie writes: > My take: Hermione distracts him from his mission, so he shuts her > up in his usual fashion. Pip replies: Uh - I'm not actually willing to go through all four books right now [grin] but can anyone remember any other scene APART from the Shack and the Hospital where Snape *screams* at Hermoine in quite this way? He does NOT shut her up in his usual fashion. Also it's some of the words he uses to shut her up which are fascinating. Amy Z writes: > Even if Dumbledore did know Pettigrew was an Animagus, how would he > recognize a particular rat as Pettigrew? > Sirius recognizes him because he's seen him a hundred times. The > implication of that explanation is that he couldn't pick out any > old Animagus rat in a crowd of real rats. Furthermore, most wizards > cannot distinguish Animagi from animals: Snape doesn't know the dog > is a man in GF, Molly and Arthur don't know the rat is a man in 12 > having him in their home, Pip replies: !!!!What the heck kind of spell is Pettigrew using that they never noticed a rat had lived that long!!!! [Presumably with a latin word meaning 'Don't think too much about me' :-)] Or did he simply 'die' several times at the Weasley's, and another cute rat (with a missing toe) coincidentally appeared? > none of the judges spot a woman crawling in Hermione's hair > at the Second Task, etc. It's a very effective disguise. Now, > Dumbledore can do all sorts of things most wizards can't, but there > is no canon to suggest that he sees through Animagical > transformations (I do realize you said it was pure speculation). > said it was pure speculation). Nor can Sirius; he recognizes Peter > because he *knows* him, the way you know your dog from other > similar dogs. I assumed Dumbledore wondered about the missing toe, actually. If he knew Peter could transform into a rat, and saw that this rat had a toe missing (and all that could be found of Peter was, famously, his finger) it might be prudent to check that the rat was what it seemed. The bit in the Shack where Lupin looks at the picture in the Daily Prophet seems to imply the missing toe is visible. But he could simply have become curious that Scabbers was being passed from Weasley, to Weasley, to Weasley... Marina writes: > Actually, I'd find it a bit more believable if you *didn't* couple > it with Pip's theory. I can see Dumbledore working to eliminate > ways in which Voldemort might come back. I can even see him looking > at the potion possibility and saying, "Well, this one's not as bad > as the others, I'll worry about the others first." It's the idea > that Dumbledore deliberately engineered the events in PoA to happen > as they did in order to *ensure* Voldemort's return at a time when > he was harmlessly wafting around the Albanian wilderness that I get > stuck on. Well, you see, I would argue that he wasn't 'harmlessly wafting'. :-) It depends on whether you think Lucius Malfoy's handing the diary to Ginny in CoS was Lucius acting under orders from Voldemort or Lucius acting on his own. Since there must have been at least some risk that Draco would accidentally turn the corner when the Balilisk was on the prowl for mudbloods, and Malfoy seems to have *some* feelings for his son, I would argue he was acting under orders. And, as I said, it was a very effective attack, nearly destroying Harry, the Weasley's, Hogwarts and discrediting Dumbledore. I'm sure Dumbledore would *love* to wait until Harry's grown up and fully trained, but I doubt Voldemort will let him. Grey Wolf writes: > Also he who has supposed Pip is a girl name, based on > the apparent female number supperiority in the list, and who is > deeply sorry is this is not the case. Pip can be a boy name or a girl name, since it is a nickname for either Philip or Philippa. In my case, it's a nickname for Philippa. :-) Pip (who is a girl. And would like to thank Porphyria and Grey Wolf for defending her theories better than she could have done. ) From editor at texas.net Wed Jun 12 19:35:46 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:35:46 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort's Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack References: Message-ID: <004801c21248$5a27d3a0$517c63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39755 Grey Wolf said: > I believe that there are many options available to recuperate > Voldemort's body. They come in a variable degree of dificulty, but > several do exist. Most of them will give back Voldemort enough power to > start winning again, and some will not, being flawed in one way or > another. Unicorn blood, for example, is flawed, since he has to drink > it continually. The PS was NOT flawed, and that was why the Unicorn's > blood was only interim preparation. But the Stone could not have given him a body. It could have assured immortality, but not given him a body. So it does not belong on this list of ways to re-corporate Voldemort. I may have to go back and read the earlier posts on this thread, but from my cursory example, it seems your theory rather egregiously violates Occam's Razor. The sets of circumstances you cite are all explicable by other, more likely rationales; even some of the more likely rationales are pretty unlikely. Enough of your basic assumptions seem to be flawed just enough to make me question your conclusion (the meaning of 'stopper death,' the capabilities of the Stone, the nature of the Polyjuice potion). --Amanda (who actually wishes she had an enchanted dishwasher) From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Wed Jun 12 19:35:30 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:35:30 -0000 Subject: What *Really* is the Purpose (or nature) of Transfiguration? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39756 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "greg_a126" wrote: > The other suggestion that's come up is dealing w/ all of the > animals may be a way to prepare those who are capable & ready to > become Animagi. > So again,isn't the whole subject pretty useless on the whole? > > Greg Hmm.. I think we will see the genuine usefulness of transfiguration in a later book. I don't think it can be a useless subject (beyond finding potential animagi), because we have been specifically told that Dumbledore was originally the Transfiguration teacher (CoS) - somehow I can't see JKR making him expert at something she didn't intend to use in a major way.[grin] Incidentally, how many of us have spotted that Dumbledore is an Animagi? Any ideas on his transfigured form (a phoenix??) Pip (hurray! a post that isn't about my theory!) Squeak From suzchiles at pobox.com Wed Jun 12 19:36:08 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:36:08 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Nature of Transfiguration/Poor Wizards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39757 > -----Original Message----- > From: Amy Z [mailto:aiz24 at hotmail.com] > > (2) The Weasleys and Lupin attest to the fact that there is such > a thing as > a powerful but poor wizard; one apparently cannot transfigure unlimited > quantities of dirt into Galleons or useful food or Floo powder or > new robes. > Sigh...not a very satisfactory solution, I know. When's JKR going to do > another chat? Let's put "Why don't the Weasleys just Transfigure > what they > need out of the dirt in the backyard?" top on the questions list. I believe that they don't transfigure their somewhat shabby belongings into things of value because they are honorable people and feel that it would be wrong. Zo From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Jun 12 19:43:25 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:43:25 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39758 Marina wrote: > Yeah, but where's the bad in that? Let them stay at a standstill > until Harry is grown. There's no rush. Plan B could just as easily > have been carried out in twenty years. The Elder Riddle's bones > aren't going anywhere, after all. Instead, Harry gets forced into > battle while still a half-trained child. And for what? Wormtail's > life-debt strikes me as a pretty dubious benefit when weighed against > the risks. James Potter had a life-debt from Snape, who's way more > competent than Wormtail, and where did it get him? It could, but in this case it was out of Dumbledore's control. He would've waited as long as Voldemort had wanted, but it was Voldemort the one that planed the Portkey!cup, after all, and I think it surprised Dumbledore as much as everyone else. As I've said three times previously today, if he had known, since he's not black, merely grey, he would have sent to help Harry something more than Cedric "Spare" Diggory. My/Pip's theory believes that Dumbledore has been controlling the way the things should be going, not the timetable they should follow. Of course Dumbledore would have prefered waiting another 10 years before Harry had to join the fight, but Voldemort made his move much sooner, and Dumbledore had to put his plans into motion (in fact, everything started to move when Dumbledore took out the stone from the vault. Before that, everything was a stalemate). > > Grey Wolf who, if he had known his Dishwasher was going to be so > liked, > > would have started on an acronym with dishwasher on it right away. > > Oooh, ooh, I can do this! > > MAGIC DISHWASHER: Mysterious Agendas Generate Interesting Conclusion: > Dumbledore Is Secretely Hatching Ways to Assure Superiority for Harry > in the Emerging Resolution > > Marina It's perfect! I love it. Let's get some nice Moderator to put it in Inish Alley, since this is one I'm going to be using and wouldn't want to forget it (I'd put it up myself, but I haven't permission). Please? Pretty please with a cherry on top? :-) Oh, and here is the official helper badge of TAGWATCH for your colaboration. It's got a wolf and a ship on it, and allows you a free visit to either the LOLLIPOPS ship (for a free-of-charge cruiser, no strings attached) or to my Cold North (bring skies. I know of a few good places whatever your level) :-) Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, defender of MAGIC DISHWASHER From suzchiles at pobox.com Wed Jun 12 19:54:05 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:54:05 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort's Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39759 > -----Original Message----- > From: grey_wolf_c [mailto:greywolf1 at jazzfree.com] > My/Pip's theory believes that Dumbledore has been controlling the way > the things should be going, not the timetable they should follow. Of > course Dumbledore would have prefered waiting another 10 years before > Harry had to join the fight, but Voldemort made his move much sooner, > and Dumbledore had to put his plans into motion (in fact, everything > started to move when Dumbledore took out the stone from the vault. > Before that, everything was a stalemate). How do you know everything was a stalemate? I would propose that Dumbledore had been warned that someone close to Voldemort was going to try to steal the stone. Without such warning, it would have been most logical to leave the stone where it was, in the Gringott's vault. Zo From editor at texas.net Wed Jun 12 20:03:41 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 15:03:41 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort's Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack References: Message-ID: <007f01c2124c$408a11c0$517c63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39760 Grey Wolf said: > My/Pip's theory believes that Dumbledore has been controlling the way > the things should be going, not the timetable they should follow. Of > course Dumbledore would have prefered waiting another 10 years before > Harry had to join the fight, but Voldemort made his move much sooner, > and Dumbledore had to put his plans into motion (in fact, everything > started to move when Dumbledore took out the stone from the vault. > Before that, everything was a stalemate). No, Dumbledore's removal of the stone from its vault was a precautionary measure. Everything was a stalemate before Quirrell took his little research trip and met Voldemort and got himself possessed (unless you think Dumbledore engineered *that* too? Sending someone to be possessed? I can't buy that). Quirrell was on his way to get the stone, which is presumably why Dumbledore moved it out of harm's way. Quirrell would have succeeded--the vault was broken into. Dumbledore's removal of the stone did *not* start the sequence of events; Quirrell's possession, giving Voldemort a chance to make a move, did. Which raises an interesting question (and I'm sorry if you have dealt with it; I haven't been able to follow threads in depth for some months. But I don't recall any discussion on it). How did Dumbledore know to move the stone? How did he know it was in peril at Gringotts? If he suspected Quirrell, he would not have included Quirrell in the stone's defenses. If he didn't suspect him, what exactly set off his alarms? Was *this* Trelawney's first prediction, instead of something having to do with Harry at all? And, by the way, to answer an earlier question unrelated to this thread, I do not think the Stone was in the mirror when the mirror was out where Harry found it. I think the Stone was at the end of the obstacle course, protected somehow or other, and that it was after Dumbledore talked with Harry and moved the mirror that he (Dumbledore) had his stroke of brilliance and put the Stone into it. Otherwise there would have been no reason to have the very dangerous Fluffy in the school, or the whole obstacle course set up at all. --Amanda, very wordy today, clearly ignoring the need to file and work on taxes From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Jun 12 20:14:38 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:14:38 -0000 Subject: Two clarifications, was Re: Voldemorts Resurrection WAS loads of other things In-Reply-To: <001501c21245$e7bd9540$517c63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39761 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda Geist" wrote: > Grey Wolf held forth: > > > "The potion that has revived me tonight is an old treasure of dark > > magic" > > Snape is a grand master of potions, and we know that he knows dark > > magic potions: the polyjuice potion is in the dark arts section, so it > > is a dark art potion itself. It is not impossible to believe that Snape > > suggested the potion to Voldemort at some point in the past. In fact, > > it is very probable, especially if Snape was of the inner circle: > > Voldemort would have used him to advance his search on inmortality > > methods. We know Snape probably knows of this potion, in fact. That, or > > there are so many other methods to "stopper death" that I should simply > > rest my case. > > First point--English usage. I would like to clarify those particular > words "stopper death." This is not an antique or quaint way of saying > "stop" death. In fact, they clarified it in the movie script, > probably for this very reason, although it damaged the flow of the > speech irreparably ('put a stopper in death,' indeed). > > To "stopper death" is to put death in a bottle; it's a poetic way of > saying "to put death in a bottle and put the stopper in." Stopper = > the cork, the thing on top of the bottle. I want to make a point: in my tranlated version it says "stop death" (liberal translation, but very exact). I was just translating from there, and repeating from memory what has been mentioned from time to time in the list. Just so I don't look *completely* stupid. Anyway, in the film, "put a stopper to death" still means the same I understood from my version: prevent death from occouring, at least to my alien understanding (D*mned English language!). > Second point, spotted as I re-read over this one. And LOON that I am, > it must be corrected. The book from whence came the Polyjuice Potion > was from the Restricted Section. NOT the dark arts section. I do not > think Restricted necessarily equals Dark; in all likelihood, plenty > of non-Dark spells are simply too complicated for the younger > students to have access to. That said, I therfore don't think you can > call the Polyjuice Potion a "dark art potion." > > --Amanda You know, a book that is described as "At one glance, it was obvious why it belonged to the restricted section. Some of the potions had effects too horrible even to imagine and there were monstruous illustrations like one of a man who looked turned inside out and a witch with several pairs of arms growing out of her head" (as always, liberal translation) looks like pretty dark magic to me. But if it's not, better still. I was trying to explain why Voldemort wouldn't be an expert of the potion. If it's not considered dark magic, there is even less reason to think he knew about it, and more reason to explain that Snape told him about it. > But the Stone could not have given him a body. It could have assured > immortality, but not given him a body. So it does not belong on this > list of ways to re-corporate Voldemort. At that time he was just looking for inmortality. The body he's recently gained is a step back in that direction. His ultimate objective is to gain inmortality, not gain a body. I realize now that my wording is confusing. I don't know, however, how your corrections attack my/Pip's theories, though. Please read the whole thread (I know, it's long, but hey! I had to *write* half of it) and clarify your position. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Wed Jun 12 20:29:48 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:29:48 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: <007f01c2124c$408a11c0$517c63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39762 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda Geist" wrote: > Grey Wolf said: > > > My/Pip's theory believes that Dumbledore has been controlling the > > way the things should be going, not the timetable they should > > follow. in fact, everything > > started to move when Dumbledore took out the stone from the vault. > > Before that, everything was a stalemate). > Amanda replied: > No, Dumbledore's removal of the stone from its vault was a precautionary > measure. Everything was a stalemate before Quirrell took his little research > trip and met Voldemort and got himself possessed (unless you think > Dumbledore engineered *that* too? Sending someone to be possessed? I can't > buy that). Me neither. But I think Dumbledore knew about Voldemort's move from those mysterious 'sources' mentioned in CoS. A truly 'evil' thought has occurred to me, by the way: Was Scabbers/Pettigrew the first attempt at engineering a Voldemort servant-with-a-life-debt; or just the first one that worked? Certainly explain why Dumbledore picked two extremely dubious DADA teachers in years 1 and 2 and then seems to have tried to go for competent teachers post-Sirius's escape. I just have visions of a conversation along the lines of 'Look, the first one we picked turned out to be actually possessed by Voldemort,the second turned out to be the only evil git in the entire WW who WASN'T working for Voldemort, do you think we could actually get it right this time?' Pip (The above is a JOKE, Marina, a JOKE [grin] ) From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 12 20:42:41 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:42:41 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39763 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > Marina wrote: > > Yeah, but where's the bad in that? Let them stay at a standstill > > until Harry is grown. There's no rush. Plan B could just as easily > > have been carried out in twenty years. The Elder Riddle's bones > > aren't going anywhere, after all. Instead, Harry gets forced into > > battle while still a half-trained child. And for what? Wormtail's > > life-debt strikes me as a pretty dubious benefit when weighed against > > the risks. James Potter had a life-debt from Snape, who's way more > > competent than Wormtail, and where did it get him? > > It could, but in this case it was out of Dumbledore's control. He > would've waited as long as Voldemort had wanted, but it was Voldemort > the one that planed the Portkey!cup, after all, and I think it > surprised Dumbledore as much as everyone else. As I've said three times > previously today, if he had known, since he's not black, merely grey, > he would have sent to help Harry something more than Cedric "Spare" > Diggory. > > My/Pip's theory believes that Dumbledore has been controlling the way > the things should be going, not the timetable they should follow. Of > course Dumbledore would have prefered waiting another 10 years before > Harry had to join the fight, but Voldemort made his move much sooner, But the reason Voldemort was able to make his move was because Wormtail escaped and found him, and MAGIC DISHWASHER claims that Dumbledore deliberately allowed this to happen. In fact, the claim is that the entire sequence of events in the Shrieking Shack and after was carefully staged by Dumbledore and Snape for the express purpose of allowing Wormtail to escape. So Dumbledore carefully plans this incredibly risky and complex charade, requiring a great deal of luck, precision timing, and Oscar-caliber acting on Snape's part -- and then he *completely fails to anticipate his own plan's biggest consequence?* This is my biggest problem with the DISHWASHER -- it attempts to present Dumbledore as this brilliant strategist who's got a plan for every contingency, but instead he comes out looking like someone who outwitted himself, tried to be too clever for his own good and fell flat on his face. What's the result of all his scheming? Sirius loses his chance to clear his name, Bertha Jorkins and Cedric Diggory are dead, and Voldemort has come back way too early. If Dumbledore had just left well enough alone in PoA, things couldn't have been any worse and they could've been much better. > Oh, and here is the official helper badge of TAGWATCH for your > colaboration. It's got a wolf and a ship on it, and allows you a free > visit to either the LOLLIPOPS ship (for a free-of-charge cruiser, no > strings attached) or to my Cold North (bring skies. I know of a few > good places whatever your level) :-) Thanks! It'll go perfectly with my Exploding SNAP badge and my pink FEATHERBOA. I don't go near the LOLLIPOPS ship, but I can go for a bit of cross-country skiing once in a while. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Jun 12 20:48:03 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:48:03 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: <007f01c2124c$408a11c0$517c63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39764 I said: > > My/Pip's theory believes that Dumbledore has been controlling the > > way the things should be going, not the timetable they should > > follow. Of course Dumbledore would have prefered waiting another 10 > > years before Harry had to join the fight, but Voldemort made his > > move much sooner,and Dumbledore had to put his plans into motion > > (in fact, everythingstarted to move when Dumbledore took out the > > stone from the vault.Before that, everything was a stalemate). Z?e asked: > How do you know everything was a stalemate? I would propose that > Dumbledore had been warned that someone close to Voldemort was going > to try to steal the stone. Without such warning, it would have been > most logical to leave the stone where it was, in the Gringott's > vault. > > Zo? And Amanda Geist, in the same line, wrote: > No, Dumbledore's removal of the stone from its vault was a > precautionary measure. Everything was a stalemate before Quirrell > took his little research trip and met Voldemort and got himself > possessed (unless you think Dumbledore engineered *that* too? Sending > someone to be possessed? I can't buy that). Quirrell was on his way > to get the stone, which is presumably why Dumbledore moved it out of > harm's way. Quirrell would have succeeded--the vault was broken into. > Dumbledore's removal of the stone did *not* start the sequence of > events; Quirrell's possession, giving Voldemort a chance to make a > move, did. > > Which raises an interesting question (and I'm sorry if you have dealt > with it; I haven't been able to follow threads in depth for some > months. But I don't recall any discussion on it). How did Dumbledore > know to move the stone? How did he know it was in peril at Gringotts? > If he suspected Quirrell, he would not have included Quirrell in the > stone's defenses. If he didn't suspect him, what exactly set off his > alarms? Was *this* Trelawney's first prediction, instead of something > having to do with Harry at all? > > --Amanda, very wordy today, clearly ignoring the need to file and > work on taxes I assume it was a stalemate since Voldemort had not made any open moves for the last 10 years. Since no peace offerings or even formal truces were declared, the correct terminology (unless my English is slipping once again) is "stalemate". I have never claimed that the Quirrell posesion was engineered by Dumbledore. I think that Dumbledore was expecting *someone* (possibly a DE) to go look for Voldemort and come back with him, or simply with orders to get the stone, but wasn't expecting Quirrell especificly. The tecnical *first* action against the stalemate was Dumbledore's order to Hagrid of taking out the stone. The attempt to steal it wasn't done until 12 hours later, but you can consider it the action that broke the stalemate if it makes more sense that way. It's beside the point, though, since the breaking the stalemate, once it's coming, it's unavoidable. Just like trying to select the year when the Middle Ages turned into the Modern Ages is moot, so's the exact moment when the stalemate broke. I selected that moment for convenience but, as I've said, you can select any other near it. How did Dumbledore know when to move the stone? We don't know, but the entire origin of Pip's theory is the fact that this has always been an undercover war, and that there are spies working for and against both sides. I assume, while defending the MAGIC DISHWASHER theory, that a spy told him that an agent of Voldemort would be making an attempt at stealing the stone, which in turn made Dumbledore start the fun. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, defender of MAGIC DISHWASHER From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 12 20:48:52 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:48:52 -0000 Subject: Quirrel and the Stone (WAS: Re: Voldemort's Resurrection ) In-Reply-To: <007f01c2124c$408a11c0$517c63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39765 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda Geist" wrote: > Which raises an interesting question (and I'm sorry if you have dealt with > it; I haven't been able to follow threads in depth for some months. But I > don't recall any discussion on it). How did Dumbledore know to move the > stone? How did he know it was in peril at Gringotts? If he suspected > Quirrell, he would not have included Quirrell in the stone's defenses. If he > didn't suspect him, what exactly set off his alarms? Was *this* Trelawney's > first prediction, instead of something having to do with Harry at all? > Another possibility is that Quirrell originally tried to rob Flamel's house, thinking the Stone was there. He wouldn't have found the Stone, obviously, but he might've found a clue to where it was (a receipt from Gringott's or something like that). Flamel, coming home to find his house burgled, would've alerted Dumbledore. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Jun 12 21:14:15 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:14:15 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39766 Marina said: > But the reason Voldemort was able to make his move was because > Wormtail escaped and found him, and MAGIC DISHWASHER claims that > Dumbledore deliberately allowed this to happen. In fact, the claim > is that the entire sequence of events in the Shrieking Shack and > after was carefully staged by Dumbledore and Snape for the express > purpose of allowing Wormtail to escape. So Dumbledore carefully > plans this incredibly risky and complex charade, requiring a great > deal of luck, precision timing, and Oscar-caliber acting on Snape's > part -- and then he *completely fails to anticipate his own plan's > biggest consequence?* (OK; for the fourth time in the ongoing series) But D knew it was coming! He had engineered that way. What he didn't see was the Portkey!Cup (why else, I insist, would Cedric be the only back-up Harry has in the graveyard scene?). Harry is supposed to be safe from Voldemort both in Hogwarts and with the Dursleys, and for short periods with other wizards. The fact that the graveyard scene demonstrates that Harry *wasn't* safe in Hogwarts is something that, I think, Dumbledore hadn't thought of (but which I hope he will include in his plans from now on). Thinking about it, I think that part of Dumbledore's spy network is Moody himslef, which is why this time Dumbledore was caught off-guard. > This is my biggest problem with the DISHWASHER -- it attempts to > present Dumbledore as this brilliant strategist who's got a plan for > every contingency, but instead he comes out looking like someone who > outwitted himself, tried to be too clever for his own good and fell > flat on his face. What's the result of all his scheming? Sirius > loses his chance to clear his name, Bertha Jorkins and Cedric Diggory > are dead, and Voldemort has come back way too early. If Dumbledore > had just left well enough alone in PoA, things couldn't have been any > worse and they could've been much better. Bertha and Cedric are errors which Dumbledore didn't intend to happen. But it's difficult to protect the entire Wiwzard Nation while allowing them to be free (if you take their liberty, you're not better than Voldemort). This is a war, and people *do* die in wars. I'm sure that Dumbledore, if he had been able to do something, would have saved their lives. But he's not omnipotent, nor is he omniscient. > > Oh, and here is the official helper badge of TAGWATCH for your > > colaboration. It's got a wolf and a ship on it, and allows you a > > free visit to either the LOLLIPOPS ship (for a free-of-charge > > cruiser, no strings attached) or to my Cold North (bring skies. I > > know of a few good places whatever your level) :-) > > Thanks! It'll go perfectly with my Exploding SNAP badge and my pink > FEATHERBOA. I don't go near the LOLLIPOPS ship, but I can go for a > bit of cross-country skiing once in a while. > > Marina Then, I'll see you whenever you've got free time. Getting here is easy: North from Theory bay, for a few days and when you reach the frozen lands of the eternal snow, listen to my howl and follow it. Don't forget to pack winter clothes! Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From suzchiles at pobox.com Wed Jun 12 21:15:21 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:15:21 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort's Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39767 > -----Original Message----- > From: bluesqueak [mailto:pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk] > Certainly explain why Dumbledore picked two extremely dubious DADA > teachers in years 1 and 2 and then seems to have tried to go for > competent teachers post-Sirius's escape. IIRC, Quirrel had the been the DADA teacher for some years and had been regarded as a very fine teacher. It was only after his research trip to Albania that things went bad. Zo From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Jun 12 21:24:21 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:24:21 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39768 Suzanne Chiles > IIRC, Quirrel had the been the DADA teacher for some years and had > been regarded as a very fine teacher. It was only after his research > trip to Albania that things went bad. > > Zo? We have been repeatedly told that the DADA teacher position has been jinxed and that Snape has been after it for years. I always assumed that Quirrell had just come back from an extended visit to Albania (i.e. a year or more long), and that something had happened to the previous DADA teacher too. There may even be canon one way or the other. We'll have to relay on someone else for this matter, though, since I cannot remember at this moment if it's just my feeling or something more canonical. Any takers? Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From suzchiles at pobox.com Wed Jun 12 21:27:44 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:27:44 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort's Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39769 > -----Original Message----- > From: grey_wolf_c [mailto:greywolf1 at jazzfree.com] > > I assume it was a stalemate since Voldemort had not made any open moves > for the last 10 years. Since no peace offerings or even formal truces > were declared, the correct terminology (unless my English is slipping > once again) is "stalemate". I believe, though with no canon to back me up, that Voldemort planned his move to exactly coincide with Harry's arrival at Hogwarts. I know this sounds pretty weird, but I think that Voldemort, in spite of his evilness (Voldemort, the Evildoer), has a certain code of honor, albeit a rather odd and bizarre one, that governs his actions. I think he waited for Harry to get to Hogwarts so that when Voldemort chose the battle, he could somehow justify his actions by going after a young-wizard-in-training rather than a boy who had been raised by Muggles and knew no magic. This could also explain certain of Voldemort's actions at the cemetery in GoF. He could have made sure that Wormtail cut Harry's arm badly to get the blood, but instead Wormtail just nicked Harry's arm. He could have easily killed Harry while he was tied up the headstone. Instead, he set Harry free and went up against him in a duel. Of course, he fully expected that he would be able to easily off Harry at the duel, but in his twisted mind, he had behaved honorably. Zo From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jun 12 21:36:59 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:36:59 -0000 Subject: The Spying Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39770 > > Debbie writes: > Pip wrote: > > >It's Hermione who takes action here: she suggests that Snape > > >listens to their side of the story. And Snape tells her to shut > > >up in no uncertain terms. I'll discuss his very interesting > > > terminology later on. > > Debbie writes: > > My take: Hermione distracts him from his mission, so he shuts her up in his usual fashion. > > Pip replies: > Uh - I'm not actually willing to go through all four books right now [grin] but can anyone remember any other scene APART from the Shack and the Hospital where Snape *screams* at Hermoine in quite this way? > He does NOT shut her up in his usual fashion. Also it's some of the words he uses to shut her up which are fascinating.<<< The words are fascinating because Rita Skeeter uses the exact same phrase: "Sit down you silly little girl, and don't talk about things you don't understand." GoF 24, when Hermione starts criticizing her about Ludo Bagman. Is it possible that one argument the purebloods use to justify their prejudice is that Muggleborns, with their talk of civil rights and such, don't understand what measures are necessary against dark wizards? Not that they're right, but that does seem to be what goes on. Snape resorts to screaming because he doesn't have the authority over her that he has in class, where he can silence her by taking points (much more effective when backed up by peer pressure) or simply refusing to recognize her. Snape can't afford much more delay if he's to get Lupin back to the castle before he transforms. Snape can't assume he'll be able to deal with transformed Lupin and Sirius at the same time. He has, as we know, no intention of turning either of them over to the Dementors, but he wants them to think otherwise. Threats are Snape's usual means of keeping a situation under control. Unfortunately he miscalculates, not realizing that Sirius has convinced the Trio that he might be innocent. Remember, Harry was quite willing to see Sirius kissed when he thought Sirius was guilty, and there's no reason to think he made a secret of this. Snape was not expecting resistance from Harry or his friends. Snape has to resolve the situation quickly. Lupin will drop his wand when he transforms and if Sirius grabs it, Snape is going to be in, dare I say it, serious trouble, facing a wizard who can kill thirteen with a single curse. Then not only does Harry refuse to understand how much danger he is in, this thirteen year old muggleborn girl has the gall to act as as if she knows more than him, Severus Snape, ex-Death Eater, about how to deal with dark wizards. I think Snape losing his temper is quite understandable. It's not as if he hasn't been building up to it. He comes close to losing it on an earlier occasion: in his office when he's questioning Harry. He doesn't get all the way to capital letters, but he does snarl, spit, turn pale and speak in italics. Speaking of this scene, if it is so absolutely vital that Harry not learn about Scabbers until the time is ripe, for what purpose does Snape risk questioning Lupin in front of Harry? Particularly if he knows that Wormtail is the name Voldemort used for his spy. I'm also not clear on the Dumbledore connection. Would Dumbledore really have risked letting a werewolf wander loose in the village? or let three children practice the incredibly difficult and dangerous animagus spell on their own? Voldemort was still at large in those days. Why would Dumbledore have taken such an incredibly foolish risk, which would surely have cost him his job and discredited him as the leader of the anti-Voldemort forces if it had become known? Considering the way he reacted to the flying car incident, it seems way out of character. > Pip replies: > !!!!What the heck kind of spell is Pettigrew using that they never > noticed a rat had lived that long!!!! [Presumably with a latin word > meaning 'Don't think too much about me' :-)]<<< Isn't it simpler to assume that the Weasleys just don't have the expertise to tell a magical rat from a common one at sight? Charlie might, but he's been in Romania for years. The elder Weasleys probably assumed that Scabbers was the ratty equivalent of a squib, long-lived but powerless. Pip says: > It depends on whether you think Lucius Malfoy's handing the diary to Ginny in CoS was Lucius acting under orders from Voldemort or Lucius acting on his own. , I would argue he was acting under orders.<< Why orders from Voldemort? Why not orders from the diary itself? Pippin From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Wed Jun 12 21:38:15 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:38:15 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39771 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > Suzanne Chiles says: > > IIRC, Quirrel had the been the DADA teacher for some years and had > > been regarded as a very fine teacher. It was only after his research > > trip to Albania that things went bad. > > > > Zo? > Grey Wolf replies: > We have been repeatedly told that the DADA teacher position has been > jinxed and that Snape has been after it for years. I always assumed > that Quirrell had just come back from an extended visit to Albania > (i.e. a year or more long), and that something had happened to the > previous DADA teacher too. There may even be canon one way or the > other. We'll have to relay on someone else for this matter, though, > since I cannot remember at this moment if it's just my feeling or > something more canonical. Any takers? I agree that PS/SS could be read either as 'Quirrel's just got the job' or 'Quirrel's been in the job for years and has just taken a sabbatical', but in CoS it gets clarified by Hagrid: "Gettin' very difficult ter find anyone fer the Dark Arts job....No one's lasted long fer a while now." (CoS, UK paperback p.88) Which implies Quirrell had only just got the job in PS/SS. Hope this helps Pip From Ali at zymurgy.org Wed Jun 12 22:01:13 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 22:01:13 -0000 Subject: Would JKR make Lupin evil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39772 I felt honour-bound to reply to Pippin, the Chief-Protagonist in the evil-Lupin forum, but I do admit to be using "gut-feeling" which is always dangerous when duelling against a seasoned campaigner. Anyway, here goes:- > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > I don't think it's necessary for Remus to be ever-so-innocent in > order to show us that prejudice is harmful and self defeating. I > think it's important for Remus to have flaws, and they might as > well be big ones. If his only problem is that no one, including > himself, recognizes his real worth, that makes him pretty much > a Gary Stu (Mary Sue) character. Same profession as the author, > no character defects, has a terrible secret and the heroes love > him. Yawn. JKR's better than that. But Lupin doesn't have a secret: he has a serious "illness". He has a serious character defect, he's a werewolf. The fact that he *seems* to be a decent person despite this shouldn't mean that the heroes can't love him and doesn't mean he is boring. > Greg: > > In short, this war is going to force the WW to start reexamining > some of their old prejudices, but that's only going to happen if > the above 3 men remain loyal to the "good" side.<< > > I can't see our heroes turning against all werewolves even if one > of them betrays them. It is their leadership, not Remus' example, > good or bad, which is going to affect the attitudes of the many. I don't think that the issue is whether Remus is representative of werewolves. IMO the point is that JKR has chosen Lupin to represent social misfits in general (and perhaps more specifically those with medical problems). I believe that it is this symbolic status that will keep him on the good side. > He's coming back for another book, which means JKR will be > doing something to change our perception of the character. > Otherwise there'd be no story. Why? - we're seeing him in a very different environment. He'll be a field operator in a war not a benign teacher. Why must he be evil as well? > Catja3000: > >>> " her overall theme is that extending understanding to those > who are different brings out the good in them.<<< > > Interesting. Where do we see this? Understanding may allow us > to *recognize* the good in someone else, which is the gist of > Dumbledore's closing speech in GoF. I don't see anyone trying > to "bring out the good" in someone else, except Hagrid with > Norbert, and we know how that turned out. I suppose I would express it slightly differently. IMO JKR is showing that those who are "different" have good in them. Their differences need to be understood so that the good points can be used and they can all function and interact in society, notwithstanding their very real limitations. This is a gut feel, so it's very difficult to defend. > > Pippin: > Consider Fudge's conversation in The Three Broomsticks. > "Potter trusted Black beyond all his other friends. Nothing > changed when they left school." We're being told that James > trusted Sirius more than Lupin, and that some of James' > friendships must have altered after he left school. Fudge doesn't > know that Pettigrew turned against James, so whom could he > have meant? Only Lupin, assuming Fudge's information comes > from Dumbledore and is reliable in this case. I don't think this means anything more than James chose Sirius to be Best Man, Godfather and then Secret Keeper.The fact that Sirius was trusted more, desn't mean that Lupin wasn't trusted. >I don't think James and Sirius are prejudiced against werewolves. What happened to make them think that Lupin wasn't reliable? Why did they think he was the spy? IMO they knew that one of their friends was a spy; they didn't think that Peter was capable, ergo it HAD to be Lupin. Imagine the pathos for James: dying, knowing that he had wrongly distrusted 1 of his friends, that another had betrayed him, and still another would get blamed for it. > It seems that Dumbledore could give Lupin a wizarding > education, but he couldn't force the wizarding world to treat Lupin > as a human being. Can't you just imagine Lupin getting the > same treatment as Winky? "That's not the point of a werewolf!" > and slam goes the door. There are plenty of real life examples > of people who became extremists under such circumstances. I fully accept this but don't think this means that *Lupin* must turn. Ultimately, it depends on whether you believe that JKR is using Lupin to make a positive message. Evil Lupin gives a warning, but it isn't positive. > >snip > > > One more bit of evidence: as the gang was leaving the Shrieking > Shack, Lupin "picked up the Invisibility Cloak and tucked it safely > into his pocket." That shows a strange presence of mind for > someone who supposedly has forgotten to take his potion, > forgotten to deactivate the Map in his office, and forgotten that *he is about to turn into a werewolf* . The narrative purpose can't be just to get the cloak out of the way so Timeturned!Harry can't use it. That would have been accomplished just as well by leaving > the cloak in the shack, which was my mistaken impression from > previous readings. What was going on? > Pippin Surely, the circumstances had changed fundamentally: Lupin forgot the potion and the marauders maps when he realised the trio could be in danger - and 2 former friends, 1 who he believed dead and the other a traitor, were with them. When he comes out of the shack, he's regained a friend, seized a traitor, seen that the kids are OK. He now has the time to clear up the cloak. He's in teacher mode looking after the kids, and clearing up after them. Ali From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Jun 12 22:02:27 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 22:02:27 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39773 Suzanne Chiles wrote: > I believe, though with no canon to back me up, that Voldemort planned > his move to exactly coincide with Harry's arrival at Hogwarts. > > I know this sounds pretty weird, but I think that Voldemort, in spite > of his evilness (Voldemort, the Evildoer), has a certain code of > honor, albeit a rather odd and bizarre one, that governs his actions. > I think he waited for Harry to get to Hogwarts so that when Voldemort > chose the battle, he could somehow justify his actions by going after > a young-wizard-in-training rather than a boy who had been raised by > Muggles and knew no magic. This could also explain certain of > Voldemort's actions at the cemetery in GoF. He could have made sure > that Wormtail cut Harry's arm badly to get the blood, but instead > Wormtail just nicked Harry's arm. He could have easily killed Harry > while he was tied up the headstone. Instead, he set Harry free and > went up against him in a duel. Of course, he fully expected that he > would be able to easily off Harry at the duel, but in his twisted > mind, he had behaved honorably. > > Zo? It has been discussed before that all wizards are possesed by a certain honour sense that makes them act as if they were knights in shining armour (especially when it would be better if they were pragmatical). I doubt, however, that this would be Voldemort's case. He seems more possesed by the evil overlord spirit (as always, check for more at http://www.eviloverlod.com ) than by any cavalier attitude. In any case, I don't think Voldemort had been waiting for any particular moment. When Quirrell happened to pass by his forest looking for vampires, he just grabbed the opportunity that meant. What he did to get into Hogwarts as a teacher or to bypass the Gringwotts security is unknown, but I don't think it was purposedly timed to coincide with Harry's first year at Hogwarts. But, as in you case, there is not much canon in favor or against. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 12 22:05:55 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 22:05:55 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39774 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > Marina said: (about Wormtail's escape) So Dumbledore carefully > > plans this incredibly risky and complex charade, requiring a great > > deal of luck, precision timing, and Oscar-caliber acting on Snape's > > part -- and then he *completely fails to anticipate his own plan's > > biggest consequence?* > > (OK; for the fourth time in the ongoing series) But D knew it was > coming! He had engineered that way. What he didn't see was the > Portkey!Cup (why else, I insist, would Cedric be the only back-up Harry > has in the graveyard scene?). So what was Dumbledore expecting -- that Wormtail would run off and find Voldemort and then the two of them would just hang around Albania for the next ten years, wondering how to get Harry out of Hogwarts? It was impossible for Dumbledore to predict the Portkey Plot, but if he was planning all this he certainly should've anticipated that Voldemort with Wormtail's assistance could come back a lot sooner than Voldemort without Wormtail's assistance. Especially since, as both yuo and Wormtail himself have pointed out, it didn't need to be Harry's blood for the potion to work. In fact, Dumbledore got lucky that Voldemort and Wormtail (and Crouch, Jr.) came up with the Portkey Plot, as that gave him extra time. They could've grabbed any random Auror off the street and used his or her blood. Hell, they could've used Moody, instead of using him for Polyjuice fodder, and come back nearly a year earlier. No, no matter how I look at it, it still seems that Dumbledore would've done much better to clear Sirius and hand Wormtail over to the Dementors. The benefits of the life-debt just don't outweigh the resulting drawbacks. (Well, there's a good chance that the life-debt will be crucial in the end, because of the foreshadowing JKR has done about it, but that's metathinking. :-) Part of successful strategy is knowing when *not* to make a move, when to sit tight and let the enemy dig his own grave. From that perspective, it seems that Voldemort proved to be the better stragetist post-PS/SS, patiently biding his time in Albania until Dumbledore obligingly sent him a willing servant. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From Ali at zymurgy.org Wed Jun 12 22:16:44 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 22:16:44 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39775 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > Suzanne Chiles says: > > > IIRC, Quirrel had the been the DADA teacher for some years and had > > > been regarded as a very fine teacher. It was only after his > research > > > trip to Albania that things went bad. > > > > > > Zo? > > > Grey Wolf replies: > > We have been repeatedly told that the DADA teacher position has > been > > jinxed and that Snape has been after it for years. I always assumed > > that Quirrell had just come back from an extended visit to Albania > > (i.e. a year or more long), and that something had happened to the > > previous DADA teacher too. There may even be canon one way or the > > other. We'll have to relay on someone else for this matter, though, > > since I cannot remember at this moment if it's just my feeling or > > something more canonical. Any takers? > > I agree that PS/SS could be read either as 'Quirrel's just got the > job' or 'Quirrel's been in the job for years and has just taken a > sabbatical', but in CoS it gets clarified by Hagrid: > > "Gettin' very difficult ter find anyone fer the Dark Arts job....No > one's lasted long fer a while now." (CoS, UK paperback p.88) > > Which implies Quirrell had only just got the job in PS/SS. Actually, I disagree here, although I admit that canon is confusing. Quirrell is not introduced as a new teacher, which he probably would have been had he just taken up the post. Also, when Harry first meets Quirrell in the Leaky Cauldron Hagrid tells him that Quirrell *is* a teacher at Hogwarts, rather than he is going to be a teacher at Hogwarts. Finally, when Harry asks Percy who the teacher sitting next to Quirrell is, during the banquet, Percy says (memory here not verbatim), so you already know Professor Quirrell. This implies to me that Percy already knows Quirrell, which he probably wouldn't if Quirrell was just starting. Ali From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Wed Jun 12 22:34:35 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 22:34:35 -0000 Subject: The Spying Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39776 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > > Pip wrote: > > > >It's Hermione who takes action here: < < snip> > > > Debbie writes: > > > My take: Hermione distracts him from his mission, so he > shuts her up in his usual fashion. > > > > Pip replies: > > Uh - I'm not actually willing to go through all four books right > now [grin] but can anyone remember any other scene APART > from the Shack and the Hospital where Snape *screams* at > Hermoine in quite this way? > > He does NOT shut her up in his usual fashion. Also it's some > of the words he uses to shut her up which are fascinating.<<< > Pippin replies: > The words are fascinating because Rita Skeeter uses the exact > same phrase: "Sit down you silly little girl, and don't talk about > things you don't understand." GoF 24, when Hermione starts > criticizing her about Ludo Bagman. > > Is it possible that one argument the purebloods use to justify > their prejudice is that Muggleborns, with their talk of civil > rights and such, don't understand what measures are necessary > against dark wizards? Not that they're right, but that does seem > to be what goes on. Sorry, but I'll accept genuine Snape dialogue only - not other wizards using the same phrase in a different situation. [grin] Seriously, what evidence do we have that Snape *is* pureblood, apart from his DE status? (Avoiding the half-vampire theory, which I rather like :-) ) And when has he shown evidence of prejudice against muggles? So far he's been strictly equal-opportunity horrible. He's far nastier to pure-blood Neville and wizard-born Harry than he is to Hermoine - Hermoine seems to get about the same level of insult as Ron (another pure-blood). > > Snape resorts to screaming because he doesn't have the > authority over her that he has in class, where he can silence her > by taking points (much more effective when backed up by peer > pressure) or simply refusing to recognize her. Snape can't afford > much more delay > Then not only does Harry refuse to > understand how much danger he is in, this thirteen year old > muggleborn girl has the gall to act as as if she knows more > than him, Severus Snape, ex-Death Eater, about how to deal with > dark wizards. > > I think Snape losing his temper is quite understandable. It's > not as if he hasn't been building up to it. He comes close to > losing it on an earlier occasion: in his office when he's > questioning Harry. He doesn't get all the way to capital letters, > but he does snarl, spit, turn pale and speak in italics. > Yes, but there he was questioning *Harry*. He gets angry (or acts angry) when questioning *Harry*. Is there any other scene where he's got beyond cold sarcasm with *Hermoine*? > Speaking of this scene, if it is so absolutely vital that Harry > not learn about Scabbers until the time is ripe, for what purpose > does Snape risk questioning Lupin in front of Harry? Particularly > if he knows that Wormtail is the name Voldemort used for his > spy. > Firstly, I don't say that Snape doesn't want *Harry* to learn about Scabbers until a certain point, what I say is that *Snape* doesn't want to be told about Scabbers in front of a lot of witnesses. If Snape knows about Scabbers, it is not going to be plausible that he'd let him escape. Also, Snape doesn't really 'question' Lupin. He overrides what he's saying twice before gagging him. He probably does feel he needs to explain how he's turned up in the Shack; I mean, he can hardly say 'Dumbledore told me to keep a close eye on Harry, and I decided that also meant keeping a close eye on you, Lupin', can he? ;-) Have you noticed Snape is described as being slightly breathless at the beginning of Chapter Nineteen? Is that because he found Harry's cloak and has then run as fast as possible down the tunnel? > I'm also not clear on the Dumbledore connection. Would > Dumbledore really have risked letting a werewolf wander loose > in the village? or let three children practice the incredibly difficult > and dangerous animagus spell on their own? I assumed that the little Lupin excursions stopped after the Shrieking Shack incident, and that it was, likewise, after the Shrieking Shack incident that Dumbledore put a stag, a dog, a rat and a werewolf together and came up with the Maurauders [grin]. > > Pip says: > > !!!!What the heck kind of spell is Pettigrew using that they never > > noticed a rat had lived that long!!!! [Presumably with a latin > word > > meaning 'Don't think too much about me' :-)]<<< Pippin replies > Isn't it simpler to assume that the Weasleys just don't have the > expertise to tell a magical rat from a common one at sight? > Charlie might, but he's been in Romania for years. The elder > Weasleys probably assumed that Scabbers was the ratty > equivalent of a squib, long-lived but powerless. Good point, but I think it is a spell - I linked it in my mind with the fact that no one at Hogwarts ever seems to point out that Ron *shouldn't* have a rat. (Owls, cats or toads only) > Pip says: > > It depends on whether you think Lucius Malfoy's handing the > diary to Ginny in CoS was Lucius acting under orders from > Voldemort or Lucius acting on his own. , I would argue he was > acting under orders.<< > Pippin replies: > Why orders from Voldemort? Why not orders from the diary > itself? I don't know how connected the diary was to Voldemort himself. It could have been a means of communication between Lucius and Voldemort - there may well be several. Lucius risks a lot in CoS. There's a small risk to Draco, there's the risk that the diary can be provably traced back to him, he does gets sacked as a governor because he's pulled in every threat he can think of to get Dumbledore out of the way - all this while he's being raided by the MoM for possession of Dark Arts materials. Why? What can he get from this apart from revenge against the Weasley's? Would revenge be worth blowing the position he's managed to regain in the Stalemate? But as orders from Voldemort... Voldemort can gain a lot from the Chamber being opened. For a start, he could kill Harry Potter - which is more a Voldemort aim than a Malfoy aim. Pip From marilyn at gtf.org Wed Jun 12 21:55:22 2002 From: marilyn at gtf.org (jedi102580) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:55:22 -0000 Subject: The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack (VERY LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39777 pip[squeak] wrote: > Snape and Dumbledore know all about Pettigrew being the Secret > Keeper. > Snape and Dumbledore already know Peter Pettigrew is Scabbers. These two, and all the rest, I can buy. Not only buy, but, given the canon that was cited in their favor, particularly the numerous references to Snape trying to prevent anyone from discussing "the rat," i.e. Scabbers, a.k.a. Peter Pettigrew, I'd say it would be very difficult to persuade me at this point that Snape, at the very least, did know. > They intend to let Pettigrew escape. But after Harry has saved his > life. This is perhaps possible. What I think would make this theory much less refutable would be to say that while they do intend to let Pettigrew escape, after his life has been saved, *at some point*, they did not orchestrate the events of the evening in question for such a purpose. The issue currently being debated, that Harry is too young for this card to be played so soon, when it depends on Voldemort at some point having to confront him, is a troublesome one, imo. Voldemort has had some way of getting access to Harry for the past two years running; why would Dumbledore then make a move which would urge Voldemort and Pettigrew to come after Harry as soon as possible? If one were to say, for example, that Snape and/or Dumbledore were hoping to postpone anyone finding out about Pettigrew yet, but the accident which knocks Snape out forces them into plan B: to play their card earlier than they had wanted, but once it has been played, they can allow Peter to escape and simply hope for the best protection for Harry that Hogwarts can give. > Did Dumbledore intend to let Pettigrew escape? Well, why else are > both Snape and Dumbledore firmly avoiding the word 'rat'? [I doubt > that they're both phobic :-) ]. How fast can a rat travel? If Fudge > had sent out a search party immediately, might Pettigrew have been > recaptured? But this doesn't explain the more frequently occurring instances of Snape trying to shut people up about it in the SS! No one has given any reason that I can see, if Snape wants Harry to be able to save Pettigrew's life, that Harry should be prevented from knowing about who he is while the crew is in the SS. -- marilyn From aiz24 at hotmail.com Wed Jun 12 23:13:15 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:13:15 -0400 Subject: of rats, toes, and wizards (was: The Spying Game) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39778 Pip wrote: >!!!!What the heck kind of spell is Pettigrew using that they never >noticed a rat had lived that long!!!! [Presumably with a latin word >meaning 'Don't think too much about me' :-)] Possibly. That would be neat. Pippin's explanation also clears it up and jibes with the query of the woman in the pet shop. Common (i.e. non-magical) rats live only a few years; the implication is that magical rats live longer. Ron constantly complains that Scabbers is boring and does nothing special, which may just mean he sleeps all the time, but also suggests that he thinks he is magical but, as Pippin says, the rodent equivalent of a Squib. >Or did he simply 'die' several times at the Weasley's, and another >cute rat (with a missing toe) coincidentally appeared? Who says he's cute? >I assumed Dumbledore wondered about the missing toe, actually. If he >knew Peter could transform into a rat, and saw that this rat had a >toe missing (and all that could be found of Peter was, famously, his >finger) it might be prudent to check that the rat was what it seemed. Even if Dumbledore noticed that Percy's/Ron's rat were missing a toe, which I find extremely unlikely, or wondered about it, which I find just as unlikely (Ron's right--he could easily have lost it in a fight), this is a bit of detective work I just can't imagine anyone doing, not even the great Other HP. Man blows up and only his finger is found. Child comes to school with rat who is missing a toe. Why would anyone ever put these two facts together, unless he already had reason to think the rat was really a human? Is there anyone on this list who, once they were halfway through PA and in possession of the facts that only Pettigrew's finger was found and that Scabbers was missing a toe, put the two things together? Is there anyone here who can say off the top of their heads, from seeing a friend's rat or guinea pig or rabbit a few times, whether that animal has the usual number of digits? >The bit in the Shack where Lupin looks at the picture in the Daily >Prophet seems to imply the missing toe is visible. Clearly, but he's looking closely at the photo. >But he could simply have become curious that Scabbers was being >passed from Weasley, to Weasley, to Weasley... Perhaps. But as omniscient as Dumbledore is, it could simply be that he doesn't pay that much attention to which students have what pets and what their names and physical characteristics are. Percy Weasley comes to school with a rat--so? Four years later his youngest brother comes to school with a rat--so? How would Dumbledore know that it was the same rat ("all gray rats look alike to me"), assuming he even paid enough attention to notice the boys have rats? I guess I am just not getting why Dumbledore should make the connection between Scabbers and any human, still less Peter Pettigrew. I've also long since lost track of how this connects to MAGIC DISHWASHER, but I'm having fun with it anyway. Amy _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From aiz24 at hotmail.com Wed Jun 12 23:50:16 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:50:16 -0400 Subject: NoxiousGas!Voldemort - Stoppering Death - Quirrell's Tenure Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39779 Datalaur (welcome!) wrote: >What if any is the significance of Voldemort's spirit passing thru >Harry and knocking him out, in HPSS? Or was that just the movie? Yeah, it's just the movie. It *could* have happened in canon--no way to know since Harry was unconscious by the time Voldemort departed Quirrell's body. So by the same token, Voldemort *could* have donned tap shoes and sung "Singin' in the Rain," which perhaps they also should have added to the movie. One of these days I'll write a rant about that scene and post it to the Movie list. Amanda wrote: >To "stopper death" is to put death in a bottle; it's a poetic way of saying >"to put death in a bottle and put the stopper in." Stopper = the cork, the >thing on top of the bottle. >So everything else in your argument aside (which I haven't been following >too closely), Snape is not saying he knows (or can teach) how to *stop >death*, he is saying he knows (and can teach) how to make deadly poisons. >Even if he knows anything about immortality potions, he's not talking about >them here. >Okay? You are absolutely right . . . and yet . . . and yet . . . This phrase *suggests* the meaning "stop death" even if it does not say so explicitly. What gets stoppered? A bottle. So the bottle is death, i.e. it's a bottle labeled "death," i.e. it has a skull and crossbones on it (=contains poison) OR it is a bottle containing death. In my imagination that leads to the thought of death as a power that can be forced, genie-like, into a bottle and forced to stay there by a stopper. In that interpretation, the contents of the bottle are some kind of potion that postpones death. It might even grant immortality, but that is a further step and even Voldemort doesn't claim straight out to have achieved it. Ali wrote: >although I admit that canon is confusing. >Quirrell is not introduced as a new teacher, which he probably would >have been had he just taken up the post. Also, when Harry first meets >Quirrell in the Leaky Cauldron Hagrid tells him that Quirrell *is* a >teacher at Hogwarts, rather than he is going to be a teacher at >Hogwarts. Finally, when Harry asks Percy who the teacher sitting next >to Quirrell is, during the banquet, Percy says (memory here not >verbatim), so you already know Professor Quirrell. This implies to me >that Percy already knows Quirrell, which he probably wouldn't if >Quirrell was just starting. Ooh, never thought of that one. The other line that hints most strongly that Quirrell's been there at least a year is Hagrid's comment that he is now (post-travels) scared of his subject and (the kicker:) his students. How would Hagrid know this if Quirrell hadn't had at least one term since returning from Albania? In contrast, it never does say in canon that no recent DADA teacher has lasted more than a year. It says in GF that *Harry* has never had one last more than three terms, but that could easily fit with his being around for Quirrell's final year. Amy Z _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Wed Jun 12 23:58:31 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 23:58:31 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39780 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > Marina said: > (about Wormtail's escape) > So Dumbledore carefully > > > plans this incredibly risky and complex charade, requiring a > > > great deal of luck, precision timing, and Oscar-caliber acting > > > on Snape's part -- and then he *completely fails to anticipate > > > his own plan's biggest consequence?* > > Grey Wolf replies: > > (OK; for the fourth time in the ongoing series) But D knew it was > > coming! He had engineered that way. What he didn't see was the > > Portkey!Cup (why else, I insist, would Cedric be the only back-up > > Harry has in the graveyard scene?). > Marina replies: > So what was Dumbledore expecting -- that Wormtail would run off and > find Voldemort and then the two of them would just hang around > Albania for the next ten years, wondering how to get Harry out of > Hogwarts? It was impossible for Dumbledore to predict the Portkey > Plot, but if he was planning all this he certainly should've > anticipated that Voldemort with Wormtail's assistance could come > back a lot sooner thanthan Voldemort without Wormtail's > assistance. Especially since, as both you and Wormtail himself > pointed out, it didn't need to be Harry's blood for the potion to > work. No, but that was covered in PS/SS where Dumbledore announces that Harry's protection from his mother was in his 'very skin'; giving Voldemort the idea that using Harry's blood would give him the same protection. [Assuming that the Harry-Voldemort dream connection is two-way]. Even if Voldemort had decided to use someone other than Harry (as Grey Wolf says, Plan B), he has still picked a resurrection route that involves becoming mortal (and killable) again - a vast improvement on the 'noxious gas' state where-you-can't-*kill*-him. He has also still used a servant with a life-debt for the potion - which may be just as big a mistake as using Harry's blood. The fact that Dumbledore at the end of GoF has planned for and achieved his 'best possible outcome' does NOT mean he didn't have plans for all the other possible outcomes. I think Dumbledore's greatest problem at the beginning of PS/SS is that unless he himself chooses immortality (and he seems to think it would have a bad effect - almost like Gandalf refusing the One Ring) HE WILL DIE. Voldemort at that point is *immortal*. This is definitely a problem, especially when you're as old as Dumbledore. His second greatest problem in PS/SS is that the only other wizard in the world powerful enough to defeat Voldemort is currently an eleven year old child. [grin] I agree with Grey Wolf; I think the Portkey was a near-disaster. Dumbledore thought the attack would come in Hogwarts, where he'd be able to give Harry support, and that with support Harry's natural magical genius would be strong enough to keep him alive. What he says about the portkey is "You have shown bravery beyond anything I could have expected of you" (GoF UK Hardback p. 603) - strongly suggesting that he did *not* expect the Graveyard scene. > In fact, Dumbledore got lucky > that Voldemort and Wormtail (and Crouch, Jr.) came up with the > Portkey Plot, as that gave him extra time. They could've grabbed > any random Auror off the street and used his or her blood. Hell, > they could've used Moody, instead of using him for Polyjuice > fodder, and come back nearly a year earlier. > > No, no matter how I look at it, it still seems that Dumbledore > would've done much better to clear Sirius and hand Wormtail over to > the Dementors. The benefits of the life-debt just don't outweigh > the resulting drawbacks. (Well, there's a good chance that the > life-debt will be crucial in the end, because of the foreshadowing > JKR has done about it, but that's metathinking. :-) > > Part of successful strategy is knowing when *not* to make a move, > when to sit tight and let the enemy dig his own grave. From that > perspective, it seems that Voldemort proved to be the better > stragetist post-PS/SS, patiently biding his time in Albania until > Dumbledore obligingly sent him a willing servant. > Except Voldemort didn't patiently bide his time.... In CoS Dumbledore says: "What interests me most is how Lord Voldemort managed to enchant Ginny..." [This is a Voldemort plan] After he's been given the diary: "Older and wiser wizards than she [Ginny] have been hoodwinked by Lord Voldemort" [This is still a Voldemort plan] "But this time, Lord Voldemort was acting through somebody else. By means of this diary." (and Dumbledore is described as 'watching Mr. Malfoy closely'). [This is a Voldemort plan. Voldemort had to give someone else orders to do the actual work, but this is a Voldemort plan]. At the beginning of PoA Dumbledore has just fought a battle in CoS with Lord Voldemort; Voldemort came close to killing Harry, nearly closed Hogwarts, caused one of Dumbledore's most loyal supporters to be carted off to Azkaban, showed the DE's have enough influence to (temporarily) remove Dumbledore from Hogwarts, nearly ruined the Weasley's standing, and only failed to kill several students by the most incredible good luck. Part of successful strategy is knowing when you *have* to make a move; sending Voldemort Peter turned Voldemort's mind towards regaining his body, rather than making further (and more successful) attacks on Hogwarts. The likely reason Voldemort didn't make any major move in PoA is the incredible security around Harry and Hogwarts after Sirius's escape probably made it unfeasible. There are still pinpricks, though. Every effort is made to discredit Hagrid (and through Hagrid, Dumbledore, who has chosen to make Hagrid a teacher); Malfoy may also have been hoping that the execution of Buckbeak would make Hagrid do something stupid enough to be sent to Azkaban for real this time. [Hagrid actually suggests this himself, but is too scared of Azkaban]. By the time the security is downgraded (Fudge's comments at the end of PoA make it clear they're just changing from Dementors, not removing it) Peter has arrived in Albania. Pip From elfundeb at aol.com Thu Jun 13 03:52:58 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 23:52:58 EDT Subject: Would JKR Make Lupin Evil? Message-ID: <3d.1f92f25b.2a39711a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39781 Pippin said, in defense of Evil! Lupin: I don't think James and Sirius are prejudiced against werewolves. What happened to make them think that Lupin wasn't reliable? Why did they think he was the spy? I wasn't going to question Evil! Lupin, because, after all, somebody has to be evil and Evil! Lupin was really quite fun, as Pippin says. Besides, I didn't want to hurt her prematurely gray hedgehog. But Pippin's question (also asked by ) reminded me of why I think everyone else has been Confunded (if willingly so) on this subject. So here are my Ever So Boring reasons why Lupin isn't evil. (references are PoA, US paperback) Sarah said: > > During the Conversation in the shrieking shack, between Lupin and Sirius, > Lupin, says that he was not told about the switch to Peter as the secret > keeper, because Sirius suspected Lupin as being in alliance with Voldemort. > > That doesn't really make sense. Why would Sirius and James suspect Lupin > over Peter? Lupin must have done something to make them suspicious. > Well, yes he did. Lupin was a very likely suspect to Sirius, for the same reason that he is an attractive suspect now. It's because he's secretive, he lies, and he betrays people's trust. But why? Because life as a werewolf in the wizarding world is like solitary confinement, and Lupin wants desperately to avoid returning to that life. Think about what Sirius saw at the time. They apparently knew that there was a spy in their midst. Sirius dismissed the idea that it could have been Pettigrew because he thought Pettigrew too stupid for the job. (ch. 19, p. 369.) Among the other candidates, well, Lupin already had a big strike against him. He lied to his new friends about where he went every month because they were the first friends he had ever had and he expected to lose them if they discovered he was a werewolf. (ch. 18, p. 354). We don't have much other evidence of Lupin's behavior at school (though there's plenty of evidence of his secretiveness in PoA), but I don't think the Prank helped either. Even if Lupin were evil, I think it highly unlikely that Lupin was involved (whatever Snape may have thought about Lupin's possible complicity (ch. 18, p. 357)), because Lupin had nothing to gain from the Prank and everything to lose. If the Prank was premeditated, then its intended outcome of the Prank would have included exposure of Lupin's secret to Snape, the Marauders' enemy, and Lupin legitimately feared being forced out of school if the student population found out abut his condition (Snape tells Harry in "Snape's Grudge" that if the Prank had succeeded, James would have been expelled). As it turned out, Lupin was a victim of the Prank as much as Snape. In any event, Lupin cannot have been pleased abut the Prank and its outcome, even if Dumbledore swore Snape to secrecy. But he would have been unlikely, IMO, to do anything about it. In fact, I suspect Sirius would have apologized. But the damage was done, and it probably made Lupin more close-mouthed than ever. Tight-lipped Lupin does make a good suspect, doesn't he? Especially to an open person like Sirius, secrecy must be a particularly suspicious trait. Yes, it's pretty easy to step onto the Lupin Is Ever So Evil! bandwagon. Because the same things that would have made Sirius suspect Lupin make him suspicious throughout PoA. But this only looks at his actions and not the underlying reasons for them. In PoA, Lupin now has two secrets: the werewolf secret he's keeping from the students, and the animagus secret he's keeping from Dumbledore. He's so haunted by the possible consequences of his secrets being discovered that he doesn't want to tell anyone anything, because it might put him on the slippery slope of telling too much. So he's become the master of understatement, reluctant to reveal anything, and always in control of his emotions. His manner is mild, his speech controlled. He even smiles at his enemies and speaks kindly of them, as he does when Snape brings him the potion. (ch. 8, p. 156) Touching Harry: Lupin seems to be drawn to Harry, as James' son (note how he asks for a word with him after the Whomping Willow destroys Harry's broomstick) but he doesn't even want to tell Harry that he knew James and Lily. Any information could be a stepping stone to discovery of his secrets. I think that's why he refrained from gripping Harry's shoulder when Harry started talking about Lily. It's not a red herring, though as it tells us a great deal about Lupin's inner conflict between his desire to be supportive of James' son and his fear of doing anything that might reveal either of his secrets. But later, when he's teaching Harry the Patronus and Harry mentions on coming to that he heard his dad, Lupin, obviously feeling some emotion, slips up. "You heard James?" and the secret is out. But Lupin still tries to end the session quickly, presumably to avoid more questions and more revelations. It's not till after his condition is revealed that he speaks frankly and honestly about his days at Hogwarts with James. And he continues the discussion, with more frankness than ever, when Harry stops by after Lupin has resigned and is sadly packing up to go back to his solitary confinement. But he still has not overcome his evasiveness, as shown by Lupin's refusal to allow Dumbledore to see him to the gates. He's still unwilling to speak openly with Dumbledore. (ch. 22 pp. 424-25) He still feels guilty about betraying Dumbledore's trust -- big strike number two against Lupin. But that doesn't make him evil. It just makes him look guilty. Dumbledore is still willing to trust Lupin after this, as he sends Sirius to Lupin's place at the end of GoF. This is not where you send someone you suspect of being a spy. Thoughts on some of Pippin's other evidence: > Harry goes through his photo album hunting for pictures of Sirius > and this group has always thought it Flint-y that Harry never > seems to notice pictures of Lupin in there. It could be that Lupin > was taking the photos, as you say, but come on -- aren't there > > Unless he *wasn't* their friend any more. > This isn't an explanation for why Harry doesn't notice any pictures of Lupin in the album, but Lupin must have considered himself still a friend and confidant of Sirius and the Potters at the time of James and Lily's death. He, in fact, was aware that Sirius had been selected as the Secret-Keeper, or he would not have puzzled over why he wasn't told about the switch (ch. 19, p. 373). Also, Harry seems to be going through the album rapidly after he hears about Sirius in the Three Broomsticks (beginning of ch. 11). He's looking specifically for Sirius, and isn't paying attention to people who don't have that dark hair like the photo in the press clipping Harry has. > > Consider Fudge's conversation in The Three Broomsticks. > "Potter trusted Black beyond all his other friends. Nothing > changed when they left school." We're being told that James > trusted Sirius more than Lupin, and that some of James' > I'm not sure Fudge meant that James' relationships with his other friends *did* change after he left school, only that his relationship with Sirius did not, or perhaps more to the point, James would never have suspected Sirius of being the spy because he had an extraordinary amount of trust in him. Pippin's explanation of the Shrieking Shack and Lupin's transformation: > As soon as the moon comes out, Lupin will transform and kill > them, all except Harry. Yes, even under the influence of the > potion, because, alas! Lupin's human mind is just as twisted > and evil as his werewolf one. "It is our choices, not our > But as a werewolf, Lupin can't pick and choose his victims. He may keep his mind when he transforms, but he has no control. That's why the Marauders had to become Animagi in order to accompany him on his transformations, because werewolves can't resist human flesh. So he wouldn't have been able to save Harry. So this *brilliant* Shrieking Shack plan is doomed to failure, and because this is the werewolf symptom that creates all the problem, that requires all the precautions, that makes him unemployable and almost made him uneducable, surely he couldn't have forgotten it in devising a plan. So he can't have had a *plan* that included keeping Harry alive. On the Dark Arts job: > > Also, if Hagrid was in contact with Lupin at the end of PS/SS, > why wasn't Lupin asked to take the Dark Arts job? The thing that > >> works best about evil!Lupin is that it gets rid of all these Flinty >> > This never seemed like a Flint to me. Hiring a werewolf as a professor was a very risky thing to do, even for Dumbledore, who points out that "werewolves are so mistrusted by most of our kind." (ch. 21, p. 392). If Dumbledore did not know Lockhart beforehand, he may have been unaware of just how incompetent he was. But one big reason why I think Lupin will not become "evil" in the "join the Death Eaters" sense relates to Pippin's very first argument in favor of Evil! Lupin: > JKR wouldn't create two characters with the > same narrative function. Only one of them can be the > scapegoat--the other is guilty, guilty, guilty. It can't be Sirius. > Everybody in the wizarding world thinks he dunnit. It's Harry's > quest to clear his name. But that leaves-- > > But if you look at it differently, Lupin can't be Evil! for the same reason. James and Sirius were the ringleaders (ch. 10 p. 204), and Lupin and Pettigrew were the followers. They needed James and Sirius (Peter for protection, Lupin for friendship). Since JKR wouldn't create two characters with the same narrative function, Lupin can't be guilty! guilty! guilty! Only one of the fpllowers can be a traitor and that's Pettigrew's job. Of course, Lupin *is* guilty. He's guilty of the crime of silence and he's guilty of the crime of fear. It seems that Dumbledore could give Lupin a wizarding education, but he couldn't force the wizarding world to treat Lupin as a human being. Can't you just imagine Lupin getting the same treatment as Winky? "That's not the point of a werewolf!" and slam goes the door. There are plenty of real life examples of people who became extremists under such circumstances. This is very true. But that might better suggest a future plot development, rather than suggesting that Lupin has been evil all these years. His Hogwarts days with the Marauders were undoubtedly the best of his life. His explanation in the Shrieking Shack does not at all suggest that James was involved in the Prank, and we've been given no other reason why Lupin would want to betray James. To the contrary, by saving Snape, James undoubtedly saved Lupin from expulsion. And Dumbledore names Lupin as one of the "old crowd" indicating that Lupin was not unemployed at that time. Maybe after enduring 12 years of isolation (during which time there would have been no opportunity to join up) and being forced back into it at the end of PoA might have embittered Lupin, but I think the reassembly of the old crowd may forestall that. Moreover, we've already got quite a number of evil characters running about. Though I do think there will be more revelations that someone hitherto unsuspected is evil, I think thematically Lupin works better as a gray character than an evil one (as I think Fudge does, too). He's already made two mistakes -- his secretiveness led to James and Lily because it led to Sirius' choice of Peter as the secret keeper. His second mistake could have had tragic consequences, too, as Harry would have been killed if Sirius had been the servant of Voldemort, as Lupin believed him to be. Lupin is a wonderful example of how even good people make terrible choices that lead to evil consequences. And even with the comfort of working with the old crowd again, Lupin may make the same mistake yet again, because the threat of his solitary prison is as present as ever. Or his fear may be something the DEs can exploit. I think this would be a much more interesting plot development than to have Lupin turn out to be another Barty Crouch. Debbie, who really enjoys all of these innovative theories that challenge our ingrained readings of the text, even though Faith *does* intervene sometimes [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at aol.com Thu Jun 13 04:32:29 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 00:32:29 EDT Subject: The Spying Game Message-ID: <155.f454e60.2a397a5d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39782 I said: > shuts her up in his > usual fashion. > Pip replied: > > > Uh - I'm not actually willing to go through all four books right > > now [grin] but can anyone remember any other scene APART > > from the Shack and the Hospital where Snape *screams* at > > Hermoine in quite this way? > > > He does NOT shut her up in his usual fashion. Also it's some > > of the words he uses to shut her up which are fascinating.<<< > Pippin responded: > > Snape resorts to screaming because he doesn't have the > > authority over her that he has in class, where he can silence her > > by taking points (much more effective when backed up by peer > > pressure) or simply refusing to recognize her. Snape can't afford > > much more delay > [snip] > > I think Snape losing his temper is quite understandable. It's > > not as if he hasn't been building up to it. He comes close to > > losing it on an earlier occasion: in his office when he's > > questioning Harry. He doesn't get all the way to capital letters, > > but he does snarl, spit, turn pale and speak in italics. > > > Pip responded: > Yes, but there he was questioning *Harry*. He gets angry (or acts > angry) when questioning *Harry*. Is there any other scene where he's > got beyond cold sarcasm with *Hermoine*? > > I only checked PoA (and only two episodes, the Potions class where Hermione gets in trouble for helping Neville with the Shrinking Solution and the DADA class where Snape substitutes for Lupin) and while it's true that Snape did not scream at Hermione in big capital letters, the scene in the Shrieking Shack does follow the same pattern as the classroom episodes. In the Potions class, Hermione offers to help Neville, and Snape cuts her off coldly with the comment that he didn't ask her to show off. Hermione went pink and shut up. In the DADA class, when Snape ascribes the class' lack of knowledge about werewolves to Lupin's supposed shortcomings as a teacher, Hermione volunteers werewolf information without being called on. Snape accuses her of speaking out of turn for the second time, and takes five points from Gryffindor. Hermione is in tears. In the Shrieking Shack, Snape begins with the same pattern, though he's already seething with anger at Sirius. Hermione suggests that Snape should listen to Sirius and Lupin, and Snape reminds her she is out of bounds, in the company of a convict, and should be quiet. That's essentially what he always tells her in class when she speaks out of turn, i.e. he tries to shut her up in the usual fashion. What's different here is what happens next. Hermione does not get pink or red or cry. Instead, she keeps on pressing Snape. "But if -- if there was a mistake --" and it's only at this point that Snape loses it ("looking quite deranged"). He doesn't want to hear what they have to say. He wants to deliver his prisoner. So he calls her stupid, and tells her not to talk about what she does not understand. He's trying to get her to shut up. And it works. There's a lot Hermione doesn't understand, including the fact that Snape has the revenge he wants in his grasp and he's not going to ruin it by hearing his prisoners' story. Moreover, this remark comes right after Hermione suggests that there's been a mistake. But to Snape, there can be no such thing as a mistake, because that would take away his revenge. So he tries to tell her she doesn't understand. To me, this explanation makes perfect sense. Debbie, who needs sleep [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Thu Jun 13 08:10:44 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:10:44 -0000 Subject: The Spying Game In-Reply-To: <155.f454e60.2a397a5d@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39783 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., elfundeb at a... wrote: > I said: > > > shuts her up in his > > usual fashion. > > > Pip replied: > > > > > Uh - I'm not actually willing to go through all four books right > > > now [grin] but can anyone remember any other scene APART > > > from the Shack and the Hospital where Snape *screams* at > > > Hermoine in quite this way? > > > > He does NOT shut her up in his usual fashion. Also it's some > > > of the words he uses to shut her up which are fascinating.<<< > > > Pippin responded: > > > > Snape resorts to screaming because he doesn't have the > > > authority over her that he has in class, where he can silence her > > > by taking points (much more effective when backed up by peer > > > pressure) or simply refusing to recognize her. Snape can't afford > > > much more delay > > > [snip] > > > > I think Snape losing his temper is quite understandable. It's > > > not as if he hasn't been building up to it. He comes close to > > > losing it on an earlier occasion: in his office when he's > > > questioning Harry. He doesn't get all the way to capital letters, > > > but he does snarl, spit, turn pale and speak in italics. > > > > > Pip responded: > > > Yes, but there he was questioning *Harry*. He gets angry (or acts > > angry) when questioning *Harry*. Is there any other scene where he's > > got beyond cold sarcasm with *Hermoine*? > > Debbie replies: > I only checked PoA (and only two episodes, the Potions class where Hermione > gets in trouble for helping Neville with the Shrinking Solution and the DADA > class where Snape substitutes for Lupin) and while it's true that Snape did > not scream at Hermione in big capital letters, the scene in the Shrieking > Shack does follow the same pattern as the classroom episodes. > > In the Potions class, Hermione offers to help Neville, and Snape cuts her off > coldly with the comment that he didn't ask her to show off. Hermione went > pink and shut up. Errr... no, she doesn't. She helps Neville when he asks her by hissing instructions at him out of the side of her mouth. I guess this is an example of the way two people can read a scene in totally different ways - because to me the point here is that Snape *doesn't* push it. He doesn't take House points off Gryffindor here - even though he shows later in the Boggart class that he was perfectly aware of what Hermione was doing. > > In the DADA class, when Snape ascribes the class' lack of knowledge about > werewolves to Lupin's supposed shortcomings as a teacher, Hermione volunteers > werewolf information without being called on. Snape accuses her of speaking > out of turn for the second time, and takes five points from Gryffindor. > Hermione is in tears. This does have a similarity to the pattern in the Shrieking Shack; in more ways than one - Hermoine has completely missed Snape's point when he tells her he's the one taking the lesson. Snape is not interested in knowing about werewolves - he's interested in making the point to the class that they *don't* know about werewolves - as his comments immediately before indicate. As a teacher, he has to concentrate on the kids who don't know the subject, as well as the one super-bright child who knows *every* subject (of course, he does this in a Snapesque way, but as I've said before, I don't argue that Snape is *nice*). > > In the Shrieking Shack, Snape begins with the same pattern, though he's > already seething with anger at Sirius. Hermione suggests that Snape should > listen to Sirius and Lupin, and Snape reminds her she is out of bounds, in > the company of a convict, and should be quiet. That's essentially what he > always tells her in class when she speaks out of turn, i.e. he tries to shut > her up in the usual fashion. Yup, he is trying to remind Hermoine that he has authority over her. > > What's different here is what happens next. Hermione does not get pink or > red or cry. Instead, she keeps on pressing Snape. "But if -- if there was a > mistake --" and it's only at this point that Snape loses it ("looking quite > deranged"). He doesn't want to hear what they have to say. He wants to > deliver his prisoner. So he calls her stupid, and tells her not to talk > about what she does not understand. He's trying to get her to shut up. And > it works. Again, we may have to agree to differ here. To me, Snape's choice of words shows that he is desperately trying to 'signal' Hermione that it is *really* important she shuts up this time and that she is, in fact, genuinely in the middle of something she doesn't understand. The fact that he resorts to screaming shows that her shutting up has a whole new level of importance. And I would say that Dumbledore effectively supporting him later in the hospital scene when Snape seriously *screams* at Hermione (by not reprimanding Snape, or asking what Hermione has to say) shows the same thing - it's important Hermione doesn't explain about Pettigrew. > > There's a lot Hermione doesn't understand, including the fact that Snape has > the revenge he wants in his grasp and he's not going to ruin it by hearing > his prisoners' story. Moreover, this remark comes right after Hermione > suggests that there's been a mistake. But to Snape, there can be no such > thing as a mistake, because that would take away his revenge. So he tries to > tell her she doesn't understand. To me, this explanation makes perfect sense. > > Debbie, who needs sleep I'd probably accept your explanatin if Snape only shut Hermione up in the Shrieking Shack. In the Hospital he thinks he's about to get his revenge, and Fudge is quite nicely convinced by the Confunded story. All he has to do, if he's only interested in revenge, is listen to her rattle on about rats, Animagi, and Pettigrew, shake his head sadly, and say 'Confunded, Minister. Black's done a very good job...' Pip (who needs to get to work) > > From anglinsbees at yahoo.com Thu Jun 13 08:56:14 2002 From: anglinsbees at yahoo.com (anglinsbees) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:56:14 -0000 Subject: Filk: Deatheater Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39784 I was looking over the filk archive- and I can't believe someone hasn't done this one before now- If it has been done somewhre else, well, I couldnt find it- here;s my take. And so here it goes, my first filk attempt ever in the Hp Genre. "Deatheater" By Ellen Anglin A Filk based on "Maneater" - Daryl Hall & John Oates with special consideration for the Lestrages. We come out to hunt at night To stalk the Muggle type Our game is not new, We've played it all before Torture and Killing Oh, you may try to flee, but you won't get thru the door Hooded forms are `bout all you'll see Just try to run, you'll never get free So wicked and wild, Not to be tamed by Azkaban or an Auror Powers the matter we're in it for love of our Dark Lord Voldemort CHORUS: (Oh here we come) Watch out Squibs we'll chew you up (Oh here we come) We're the Deatheaters (Oh here we come) Mud-bloods we will chew you up (Oh here we come) We're the Deatheaters I wouldn't if I were you I know what he can do V's deadly man, and he is gonna rip your world apart Avada Kedavra! Ooh, the bright flash of green, and the dark mark is in the sky CHORUS Ooh, Oh here we come Here we come Watch out squibs we'll chew you up Whoa here we come (Watch out) We're the Deatheaters Oh here we come We're the Deatheaters Mud- bloods we will chew you up (Oh here we come) Here we come, We're the Deatheaters (Oh here we come) (Watch out) Come out to hunt at night, ooh (Oh here we come) Here we come We're the Deatheaters (Oh here we come) We're the Deatheaters So wicked and wild ooh (Oh here we come) Here we come Watch out boy, watch out boy (Oh here we come) Oh, watch out, watch out, watch out, watch out (Oh here we come) Yeah yeah we're the Deatheaters (Oh here we come) (We're the Deatheaters) Torture and Killing (Oh here we come) We're the Deatheaters Note to Death Eaters; Song invokes more fear when appropriately customized- feel free to replace "Squibs" and "Mud-Bloods" with "Harry" "Aurors" or other suitable object. -V. Ellen, A pottering beekeeper From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Jun 13 10:15:17 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 10:15:17 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew, Hagrid, and Voldemort's Wand (WAS: Spying Game) In-Reply-To: <1a8.37b44ee.2a37c808@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39785 Pip!squeak was troubled by Pettigrew in Hagrid's milk jug (although she soon got over her dismay by laying it at the feet of Well-Nigh- Omnipotent!Dumbledore): > Was hiding in Hagrid's hut Pettigrew's very own idea? Or did Hagrid > deliberately find him and keep him there? Why didn't Pettigrew slip > past the Dementors before the scene in the shack? If Sirius could > do it, so could he, and leaving Hogwarts wouldn't be half as > dangerous as staying (not with Black and a mad part-kneazel to > contend with). Eloise confessed herself similarly troubled: > Now Pettigrew hiding in Hagrid's hut, I have to admit, I always > found pretty odd. He was so likely to have been *found* - as he was. Mmmm. You know, I have always found this an extremely troubling plot point as well. In fact (she says, smiling shyly and apologetically at Charis Julia), I seem to remember once making one hell of a mess on board the ELGINMARBLES barge just to try to account for it. In that speculation, which was so horrifically silly that I was only able to bring myself to offer it up in a state of self-imposed exile over on OTChatter, I proposed that Peter had been waiting around Hagrid's hut all that time in the hopes of making contact with the Centaurs, who had been entrusted with the safekeeping of Voldemort's wand some thirteen years before. But another possibility has just occurred to me. What if Peter *was* hanging around Hagrid's hut in the hopes of retrieving voldemort's wand -- not from the Centaurs, but from Hagrid himself? No. Seriously. Just think about this for a minute. Who was the first on the scene at Godric's Hollow after Voldemort was reduced to vapor? Well, many people have speculated that Peter himself was. The underlying supposition here is that the nature of the Fidelius Charm necessitated that Peter show Voldemort to the Potters' hiding place in *person,* and that he therefore must have been present for their deaths and Voldemort's destruction. He picked up the wand, so the theory goes, fled the scene, and then went and hid it somewhere safe before framing Sirius and disappearing into obscurity as a rat. After the events of PoA, he then went and retrieved it before he went off to Albania to look for Voldemort. Well...okay. Even if Peter was there first, though, Hagrid got there awfully *fast,* didn't he? Hagrid is the first person whom we *know* to have arrived on the scene after the Potters' deaths, and from his description in the first chapter of PS, it would seem that he arrived even before the bodies were cold. In response to Dumbledore's asking him if there were any problems, Hagrid reports: "'No, sir -- house was almost destroyed but I got him out all right before the Muggles started swarmin' around.'" In short, Hagrid got there even before the first of the rubberneckers arrived. That's fast work. Very fast work. In fact, the phrasing makes it sound as if the house might even have still been in the process of collapsing when Hagrid showed up to rescue baby Harry from the ruins. What else might he have done while he was there? Is it possible, given what we know of Hagrid's character, that he might have picked up a spare wand that he noticed lying around in the rubble? I think that this is not only possible, but quite likely. Hagrid is both curious and child-like, just the sort of person who picks up strange objects without giving too much thought to their provenance. It has also been well-established that he is highly resistant to his status as a "de-wanded" wizard. He may even resent it. He constantly violates the restriction against expelled students practicing wandwork. Even while on a mission for Dumbledore, he chooses to use magic that Dumbledore has not authorized him to use -- and then he asks an eleven year old boy to agree to keep his secret for him. He hides the broken pieces of his snapped wand so that he can use them to perform illicit magic, and then lies (badly) when Ollivander asks him about it. When it comes to his wandless status, Hagrid is not law-abiding, and he is not honest. Hagrid can also be secretive -- again, often in remarkably child-like ways. Both as a teenager and as an adult, he shows a marked and child-like tendency to try to hide away evidence of his wrong- doings. As a student, he smuggles Aragog into Hogwarts, keeps him hidden away, and then, when it seems that he might be called to task for it, smuggles him right back out again. He follows precisely the same pattern of behavior as an adult with Norbert, whom he first hatches illegally on the Hogwarts campus, then keeps hidden away in his hut, and finally allows to be furtively smuggled away when circumstances threaten to expose the secret. He keeps the evidence of his illicit wand use hidden away inside a pink umbrella. Would it not be perfectly in keeping for Hagrid to have picked up Voldemort's wand, perhaps planning to keep it for his own use, and then, when he realized whose it actually was, to become frightened, hide it away somewhere in his hut, and try to put it out of his mind, rather than owning up to Dumbledore that he had such an item in his possession? Yes. I think that this would be perfectly consistent with everything that we have seen of Hagrid's character so far. Now what of Peter? If Peter really was still on the scene when Hagrid arrived, then he must hidden himself away. He would not have wanted to be seen, and indeed, he was *not* seen, either by Hagrid or by Sirius. What if he saw Hagrid pick up Voldemort's wand and leave with it? This would explain what Peter was doing in Hagrid's hut. He was looking for Voldemort's wand, on the off-chance that Hagrid still had it secreted away somewhere in his hovel. To remain at Hogwarts for so long looking for Voldemort's wand was certainly a risk, but it is one that I believe that Peter would have been willing to take, for the simple reason that Peter is absolutely *terrified* of Voldemort. He has resolved to go crawling off to Albania to look for him, but only because he genuinely believes that only Voldemort's protection can possibly suffice to protect him from Sirius, Remus, and the entire Ministry of Magic, all of whom he thinks are going to be hunting for him. Had Sirius never escaped from Azkaban, Peter would have died of old age (or perhaps of emphysema) as the Weasley family's amazingly long-lived and decrepit pet rat. Peter is willing to risk seeking out Voldemort because he thinks that it the only way to save his own life, but he is terrified. He needs something to produce as an offering, doesn't he? Especially after so many years have passed? Some proof of his devotion, some proof of his loyalty? At the very least some proof of his *usefulness?* It is how submissive little sycophants like Peter think. Just look at how he behaves with Bertha Jorkins: he offers her up to Voldemort not even knowing whether or not she will prove useful, but instead as a kind of token sacrifice. He's like some frightened little acolyte, Peter is, making desperate random offerings to his mad, cruel, and unpredictable god. I think that Peter did find Voldemort's wand in Hagrid's hut. I think that when Hermione caught him, he was just waiting for Hagrid to leave the building so that he would have the opportunity to steal it. This would explain why he was so very *poorly* hidden -- he had picked a hiding place from which he could easily see and hear when Hagrid had left the building, and also from which it would take no time at all to jump down onto the floor and then transform. This would also explain why he reacted with such extraordinary panic when Ron took him in hand and would not let him go. Yes, his cover had been blown. But all the same, surely he never thought that Sirius would really believe that "I've been killed, honest!" story a *second* time, did he? The story was for the benefit of the children and for the vicious Crookshanks, never for Sirius himself. Sirius is nowhere in sight when Peter first starts writhing and struggling and biting at Ron's hand. He is so very desperate to escape there, I think, because after weeks and weeks of searching Hogwarts in a very high state of anxiety, he was finally on the verge of being finally able to escape for *good,* with Voldemort's wand in tow, and that was when the kids showed up to interfere with his plan -- at the worst and most *frustrating* possible moment. If this theory holds true, then it also explains how Peter can have been the one to restore Voldemort's wand to him and yet not have had it in his possession in the Shrieking Shack, without begging the question of precisely where Peter could have hidden such a item and still been certain that it would be there over a decade later. No special hiding places are necessary. After his escape at the end of _PoA,_ Peter simply would have needed to return to Hagrid's hut (hardly the most secure place in all Hogwarts), stolen the wand, and then set out on his long trek to Albania. Thoughts? -- Elkins (who is afraid that she just can't quite stomach LeCarre!Rowling, but who *has* noted with profound approval that Pip!Squeak is named after a character from an Agatha Christie novel in which [SPOILER ALERT] the author consciously manipulates the fact that many of her readers are likely to assume one of the book's major clues to be "just a typo.") From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Thu Jun 13 10:19:31 2002 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 13 Jun 2002 10:19:31 -0000 Subject: New poll for HPforGrownups Message-ID: <1023963571.155.89273.w34@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39786 Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the HPforGrownups group: Which, if any, of the following characters do you believe will ultimately turn out to be Ever So Evil? o Ludo Bagman o Sirius Black o Vernon Dursley o Arabella Figg o Cornelius Fudge o Rubeus Hagrid o Frank Longbottom o Granny Longbottom o Remus Lupin o Minerva McGonagall o Draco Malfoy o Alastor Moody o Severus Snape o Sybil Trelawney o Trevor the Toad o Arthur Weasley o Molly Weasley o Percy Weasley o Ron Weasley o Winky o Other currently unsuspected being o There are no secretly Ever So Evil characters at the end of GOF To vote, please visit the following web page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=929853 Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups web site listed above. Thanks! From christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com Wed Jun 12 23:04:38 2002 From: christopher_g_nuttall at hotmail.com (Christopher Nuttall) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 00:04:38 +0100 Subject: Dumbledore and Voldemort References: <001501c21245$e7bd9540$517c63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39787 Hi all There are some peculiar contradictions in the books, perticuly the relationship between Dumbledore and Voldemort, that started me thinking along two lines: Why is Voldemort afraid to face Dumbledore? and Why did dumbledore miss a perfect opportunity to kill Voldemort? When did Dumbledore and Voldemort first meet? We know that Dumbledore knew Tom Riddle while he was at hogwarts, and was a bit suspicious of him, but did they ever meet face-to-face after Riddle became Voldemort? In Chamber of Secrets, Dumbledore says that few people realized that Riddle and Voldemort are/were the same person. If so, How did Dumbledore discover it? I believe that one clue is provided when Voldemort offers to let Harry join him. When Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald in 1945, did he get the thanks of the magical community? Sure, he's regarded as the greatest wizard of modern times, but what rewards has he got? The headteachership yes, but anything else? We know that Dumbledore was offered the post of Minister of Magic, but he turned it down. Did Voldemort know that? If he thought Dumbledore might be bitter about his 'rejection', might Dumbledore join him? I suspect that Voldemort and Dumbledore met during or just before his first rise to power. Then, Dumbledore would have learnt Riddle/Voldemort's history and refused him. On the other question, we know that Dumbledore had a fair suspicion where Voldemort's resurrection was going to happen, and we know that the Killing Curse is unstoppable. Harry was the only person to have survived it. In that case, why not stake out the Riddle house with Aurors and hit Voldemort just after he is resurrected. Or wait for the death eaters to arrive and make a clean sweep. If magic near the house will tip Voldemort of, why not use a Muggle atomic bomb to finish the job? What does Dumbledore really feel about Voldemort? Any Thoughts? Chris (PS, to mods, I hope this meets with your approval.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From erectionpants at yahoo.com Thu Jun 13 02:51:45 2002 From: erectionpants at yahoo.com (catja3000) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 02:51:45 -0000 Subject: Would JKR make Lupin evil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39788 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alhewison" wrote: > But Lupin doesn't have a secret: he has a serious "illness". He has a > serious character defect, he's a werewolf. The fact that he *seems* > to be a decent person despite this shouldn't mean that the heroes > can't love him and doesn't mean he is boring. Good point. But his werewolfness isn't a character defect -- it's an *illness*. The fact that the WW treats it like a character defect is part of the point, and is part and parcel to JKR's condemnation of the bigoted sectors of the WW, which treat all differences as if they were defects. However, being a werewolf does make Lupin dangerous while in wolf form. And this causes him a great deal of anxiety; he is still "haunted" by the thought of what could have happened while out marauding, that his irresponsibility (youthful or no) could have hurt someone. Also, the fact that he's been keeping information from Dumbledore has been a terrible burden. Lupin is carrying around an enormous amount of guilt and pain and worry; but he still manages to soldier on, to be a good teacher, and to show kindness and generosity. He's hardly a faultless "Gary Stu"; but he is intelligent and mature enough to admit his wrongdoing, and to suffer the consequences. Neville, interestingly enough, displays some of these same qualities, although he is much more timid and tremulous about it. Another factor in Lupin's defense the structure of the narrative. She's already hit the supposed-good-guy-turns-out-bad note twice, though within different chords, so it's not repetitive. Pettigrew, obviously, is the first -- the supposed innocent murder victim who was not only guilty, but not a murder victim at all. And now Crouch- Moody, as the teacher who is absolutely trustworthy -- whoops, guess not. JKR laid the groundwork for the question of a kind, sympathetic teacher with a dirty secret in PoA. Lupin, when he confesses his werewolfism and his acceptance of Sirius' innocence, is reviled by the Trio, who feel betrayed. But once everything is explained, they realize that he is telling the truth, and he's on their side, and that his dark secret (werewolfism)is one that can be lived with (especially with wolfsbane pootion). Okay, fine. He's been established as a good guy. However, there's nothing ruling out JKR reversing that in a later book. Well, nothing besides the events of Book 4. Psedo-Moody is set up to fill exactly the same role as Lupin did in Book 3 -- that of the benevolent teacher-mentor-friend. Although their personalities and temperaments differ, the parallels between the two are manifold: unprepossessing appearance, extensive knowledge of the Dark Arts, a hands-on Dewey-esque teaching style, a defense of Harry early in the year (Lupin on the train with the dementors, Moody zapping Malfoy), revealed to have shapechanging ability, a willingness to say Voldemort's name, leave Hogwarts at the end, confiscation of the Marauder's Map, embarassment of Snape that works to Harry's benefit, a particular show of kindness to Neville... I could go on. In the last, in fact, JKR explicitly invokes Lupin when referring to Moody's comforting of Neville -- passing along Sprout's compliment "is something Professor Lupin would have done," and that act is what inspires Harry's trust (not just his admiration). It's Moody's seeming similarity to Lupin, in his kindness and intelligence, that makes it easy for us, and Harry, to trust him. And then JKR twists the knife. What I mean to say, very long-windedly, is that JKR has already used that particular knife-twist once. The explicit parallel of the characters won't mean much, in a narrative sense, unless there is a basic, fundamental difference between the two; otherwise, it's just more of the same. Lupin turning out evil would be ridiculously repetitive, not only of his own "not-what-he-seems" moment, but also an almost exact duplicate of Crouch's. JKR's got more imagination than that, and the tricks up her sleeve are likely going to be spread more evenly among the other characters, particularly the ones who haven't had anything really significant revealed about them yet, and I don't think she'll be hitting the same good-guy-turns-out-to-be-on Voldemort's-side note. After all, that's been the twist of the last two books, with a side helping of Voldie's-henchman-turns-out-to-be- good (a bit up in the air, in Snape's case). The next good-or-bad revelations/concerns will be more subtle, in keeping with the maturing of both Harry and the tone of the books -- a good guy's (Hagrid, Percy, Ron) unintentional betrayal or a bad guy's (Draco, Pettigrew) isolated kindness or warning spring to mind. Pippin? I bow before your ingenuity (conspiracy theories are such fun, aren't they? ;) ), but I don't think that JKR is going to give us again anything as simple as "He SEEMS like a good guy, but he's REALLY a servant of Voldemort!" again. It's going to get much more layered and complicated, and characters' motives aren't going to boil down that neatly anymore. It's already starting with Fudge -- he isn't actively working for Voldie, but his prejudices and laziness are helping evil while hindering good. Okay, I *really* need to shut up now. Catja From erectionpants at yahoo.com Thu Jun 13 05:06:40 2002 From: erectionpants at yahoo.com (catja3000) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 05:06:40 -0000 Subject: Would JKR Make Lupin Evil? Addendum Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39789 Hope the looong post I subjected y'all to goes up before this, because I wanted to add a brief note to my "plot device" argument. ::puts on folklorist's hat:: The deep structure of the HP novels, like much genre fantasy in general, is that of the fairy tale. JKR subverts, spoofs and parodies many other genres (school stories, mystery novels), but remains faithful to the underlying framework. The form and aesthetic criteria of the fairy tale are very deeply embedded within the narrative, and JKR is not interested in fussing with that structure (unlike, say, Calvino), as her concerns are elsewhere. One of the key tropes of the fairy tale is that of opposing duality, the conflict between a delineated protagonist/antagonist who, importantly, mirror each other. The hero cannot defeat the villain unless there's some commonality between them -- Bluebeard and his wife both seek the forbidden, Snow White and the Queen are forced into competition with each other, etc. JKR's continual emphasis upon the links between Harry and Voldemort show this -- they're, in effect, doubles of each other, only Harry is good and Voldie is bad. It's the same with Lupin and Crouch-Moody: Crouch-Moody's likeness to Lupin, a likeness explicitly remarked upon, lends him credibility and allows his plan to succeed. As the story goes, there's got to be a Faithful Ferdinand for Faithless Ferdinand to get his foot in the door. It's an old, old story, folks, and JKR doesn't screw around with something good; she layers it and expands it and tosses in a bunch of characters with differing agendas and motivations, but the tale-type, the narrative impetus, the fidelity to Story, remains the same. Lupin is exonerated by the plot he's in, as his double has been revealed as the bad guy. ::takes off folkorist's hat:: I'm not, mind you, suggesting that Fred or George will turn up bad -- for all intents and purposes, they function as one character (one brain, anyway). :) Catja From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Jun 13 10:35:57 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 06:35:57 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Spying game/ Vodemort's resurrection/ Animagi Message-ID: <163.f1e6355.2a39cf8d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39790 Yikes! So many great posts flying around and so little time to comment! I wrote most of this yesterday, but didn't have time to complete it. Since then, loads more posts have appeared. I already feel like Alice when she meets the Red Queen, having to run faster and faster merely to stay in the same place and if I take the time to read the rest before posting this, it's only going to get worse! ;-) The long and the short of which is....Sorry if I'm repeating stuff which other people have already said or which is really stupid in the light of more recent posts. ....................... Let's start with this from Marina on the vexed question of animagi and their ability to retain (or not) their mental faculties: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kiricat2001" wrote: > > > Yeah, but we know that's not true. Reeta Skeeter turns into a > > > beetle and flies around all over the place while retaining > enough > > > human intelligence to eavesdrop on conversations and remember > them > > > well enough to write them down later. She certainly has no > problems > > > remembering where she wants to go as a beetle. My theory is that > > the > > > guy who wrote QTA may have known a lot about Quidditch, but he > > > didn't know squat about Animagus transformation. :-) > > > > > > Marina > > > > Maybe it's time for me to reread the books, but I was under the > > impression that Rita was also an unregistered Animagus. IIRC, in > > discussions about what-we-don't-want-to-see-more-of in the > remaining > > books in the series, a number of people had said that we have > quite > > enough unregistered Animagi, thank you very much. If that's the > case, > > then of course she retains her human intelligence the same as > > Wormtail, Padfoot or Prongs. > > Huh? What does being registered on unregistered have to do with > retaining one's human intelligence while in Animagus form? > Registered just means you go down to the Ministry and fill out a > little form saying "I'm an Animagus, this is what I turn into." > It's a bureaucratic procedure, not an aspect of the transformation. > Eloise: IIRC from the last time this was discussed, the facts that we *know* that Animagi retain their mental faculties and that the writer of QTA talks about the unfortunate bat transfiguree can be reconciled if we *don't* interpret the bat as being an Animagus - they 'find themselves transfigured' into a bat, possibly by someone else. One of the difficulties of the Animagus transformation must be just that, learning to transfigure one's bodily form but *not* one's mental faculties. ................... Next up, Pippin takes me to task for suggesting that Prongs could negotiate the tunnel and I was just about to reply and say, 'Yes, how silly of me', when Catlady flew to the rescue on her broomstick: >Yes, I too envision James rushing to the rescue in human form. But I >think he had to turn into a stag to hold the werewolf off while Snape >made his getaway (or at least to save himself from the werewolf). I >don't see HOW Snape could have looked back to see the werewolf (and >then run even faster away) without also seeing the stag... I now envision a *possible* scenario where Snape *did* find out about the Marauders' animagic abilities. When he rushes to Dumbledore to complain about the Prank, he tries to tell him, but is silenced by the headmaster who doesn't want to know all the details and thinks that Snape's discovery is merely that of Lupin's secret. Alternatively, he is sworn to secrecy about this, too, although Dumbledore doesn't tell the Marauders themselves that their secret is out (that would mean admitting that *he* knows and therefore condoning it). But I don't think he can ever have seen Sirius transformed, or why was he so surprised that the large black dog in the Hospital Wing turned out to be he? ............. Debbie: >But I do have a lot of trouble with the notion that Snape and/or Dumbledore >would engineer a plan for Harry to create a life-debt for Peter Pettigrew for >him to take to Voldemort. As Dumbledore says later, in respect of that same >life-debt: "The consequences of our actions are always so complicated, so >diverse, that predicting the future is a very difficult business indeed." >Suggesting to Harry that he might be glad that he saved Pettigrew's life is >very different from attempting to engineer that result. Eloise: This is very true. It is true also of the very reasonable objections raised to my suggestion that the resurrection potion was engineered by Dumbledore and Snape. But what if the first prediction indicated the way in which Voldemort would rise again? Dumbledore is very ready to accept the genuine nature of Trelawney's second prediction. Is this because it meshed in so well with the first? Debbie: >It seems to me that 80 percent of Snape's actions, in the Shrieking Shack and >in the hospital wing, are explainable by the simple fact that he despised >Sirius and was intent, at all costs, on capturing Sirius himself. Eloise: Oh yes, this is terribly personal for Severus. But that doesn't exclude the possibility that it was happening against the background of a greater plan. After all, even if they *were* planning to send Pettigrew back, Dumbledore and Snape both apparently believed at this point that Sirius was guilty. Debbie: > He insults James. But, IMO, he never takes >his eyes or his wand off Sirius. He's probably only half looking at Harry, >and he's not looking at Hermione or Ron at all. That's how he can be >blindsided by the Trio. E: I like that. He wasn't even truly incompetent there! ;-) Debbie: >Snape doesn't care about the rat. He doesn't want exculpatory evidence. He >wants to bring Sirius up to the castle as his prisoner, and Lupin, too, as an >extra bonus, to prove to Dumbledore that Snape was right about him all along. Eloise: I'm sure you're right here. He's comfortable with Sirius' guilt and doesn't want his boat rocked. But as Porphyria pointed out, he can believe in the guilt of both Sirius and Pettigrew. He can also believe that Pettigrew is still alive. It *is* possible that he has both a personal and a strategic reason for not wanting to discuss the Rat. Debbie: >>The point is that neither Severus Snape or Albus Dumbledore would >>have any reason to shift the conversation so deliberately away from >>the word 'rat' unless they *both* knew that 'Peter-Pettigrew-is- >>alive-and-he's-Scabbers'. >Dumbledore cuts everyone off because there's no time for explanations, if >Harry and Hermione are going to free Sirius. They have to use the >Time-Turner before the Dementor arrives to perform the kiss on Sirius, Eloise: There is obviously a time-restraint here and I think Debbie's explanation is eminently reasonable. However.... >because (and I realize here that there are those who believe differently, but >I think this is what JKR intended) the Time-Turner can't be used to *change* >history; it creates simultaneous histories for the users of the Time-Turner. >So Dumbledore shuts everyone up so H&H can get on with it ASAP. Eloise: You lose me here. I thought that you could (according to the story) and that this was what Hermione meant when she said, 'We're breaking one of the most important wizarding laws! Nobody's supposed to change time, nobody! You heard Dumbledore, if we're seen - ' (POA, UK paperback, 291-2) Now if the Time-Turner merely creates simultaneous histories for the user, doesn't this mean that as far as Dumbledore, Hagrid, Fudge etc, who haven't used the Tim-Turner, Sirius is indeed worse than dead? The only way I can get my head round that at all is by slipping back into multiple world theories - helpfully also known as alternative histories - (is this a case of Schrodinger's Dog, rather than Cat?) But again, I have the problem that the Dumbledore who sent them on their mission belongs to the world where Buckbeak *was* executed. If they are creating a simultaneous history, then that implies that there is a history where Sirius *is* kissed..... Doesn't it? ....genuine question, because I start to get confused when I think about this too long. ;-) Incidentally, the whole Time-Turner incident does show that Dumbldore is already, in POA, prepared to act (or encourage acts) outside the law if he sees fit. Debbie: >I can't see how exonerating Sirius would by itself put Harry in danger. If, >as is probably the case, Harry is only safe with the Dursleys or at Hogwarts, >surely Sirius wouldn't insist on keeping him. Unless he was evil, in which >case his insistence would be a dead giveaway. Eloise: And of course, we have a precedent for his giving way already, immediately after Lily and James' deaths, when he originally wanted to take care of Harry himself. (Of course, if he had, he's have been far too busy looking after him to go off after Pettigrew, which would have changed the course of events completely!) Debbie: >>Eloise, commenting on the Resurrected Voldemort addenda: >>I do find it interesting that he's resurrected via a *potion*. And I >>do wonder if Voldemort, believing Snape still loyal to himself, sent Wormtail >>to him for advice. And naturally Snape, now being on the side of right, >>engineered, along with Dumbledore for there to be a fatal flaw (hence the >>gleam of triumph, when Dumbledore realised the plot had succeeded). If >>Wormtail had to believe Snape's continuing loyalty to Voldemort, that in >>itself would be a reason for Snape to ignore Sirius' pleas to 'look at the >>rat'. > >This idea of Snape sending Pettigrew off with the fatal resurrection potion >really intrigued me when I read it, though the *plan* assumes too much - to >use David's points -- starting with the idea that Voldemort would use Harry >in the first place and ending with the idea that Voldemort would not kill >him. Unless, of course (thinking out loud here), Snape and Dumbledore knew >Harry would survive because, say, Trelawney's first prediction was that the >last Potter would kill Voldemort. This would also accord with my personal >view that (a) Voldemort as a noxious gas was immortal and could not be >killed, (b) there were other ways besides the potion to resurrect him, and >(c) the potion effectively anit-baptized Voldemort so that he lost his >immortality, necessary so that Voldemort could be killed - and that Harry's >blood was not necessary to accomplish this. So perhaps they arranged for >Pettigrew to take back the potion intending that Harry would continue to be >protected, either at the Dursleys or at Hogwarts. But how? I can't figure >this part out. Or why Voldemort would still believe Snape is loyal to him >after all the work Snape did in PS/SS to thwart Quirrell with Voldemort >hiding in his turban. Eloise: I covered part of that above and quite accept that there are strong objections to the idea (which was never more than a speculation, if one I like). Your point, (a), I think, is virtually canon fact, certainly strong canon speculation and (c) its logical conclusion. That old Snape/ Quidemort conundrum again, eh? The information we have is very ambiguous, IMO. I'm starting from the premise that Snape has managed to keep up at the very least some doubt in Voldemort's mind as to where his loyalties lie (my actual position is that Voldemort believed he was a double agent in *his* service). If Snape knew/suspected Quirrell was in Voldemort's service, as apparently he did, right from the beginning, he *must* have been very circumspect in what he let slip. In fact, whilst attempting to thwart Quirrell, I believe it was imperative that he didn't appear to be truly on Dumbledore's side. Quirrell never actually *says*anything about Snape in this context other than how useful he was to distract attention from himself. The overheard conversation in the Forbidden Forest is terribly ambiguous and could (as JKR obviously wants us to do, initially) be interpreted as Snape trying to make sure that Quirrell is on-board as a Voldemort supporter. Perhaps this is indeed the game that he is playing, making out that he wants the Stone for Voldemort and that he suspects Quirrell is playing Voldemort false, either wanting the Stone for himself, or lacking the courage to go through with his mission. This would be another very good reason for Snape's apparent failure to involve Dumbledore in his suspicions, as that would be a dead give-away. Debbie: >Basically, I think that rather than setting Harry up, Dumbledore figured out >what kind of choices Harry was making and then gave him the tools he would >need to have a chance to succeed. Harry really stepped up to the plate >himself in PS/SS; he didn't have to, although obviously the earlier Harry >learned what he'll need to survive as a Voldemort target the better off he'd >be. In the event he did not, there were a lot of protective eyes watching >and guarding Harry (Snape for example at the Quidditch match) until he's >ready (or in the event he refuses) to go to bat for himself. Harry may have >a *destiny* but it's his to accept or reject. This, I think, rings very true. I certainly don't like the idea of a manipulative Dumbledore 'setting up' Harry and it's not what Harry himself suggests, only that Dumbledore suspected he was going to try, wanted to give him a chance and gave them enough help to succeed (PS, UK, 219). In a way it was a kind of test, (in the heroic tradition) but one that Harry *chose* to undertake. Eloise Off to read her backlog of mail and see how silly she sounds! ;-) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Jun 13 11:02:09 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 07:02:09 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Two clarifications, was Re: Voldemorts Resurrection WAS l... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39791 Grey Wolf, quoting Amanda Geist: > > First point--English usage. I would like to clarify those particular > > words "stopper death." This is not an antique or quaint way of saying > > "stop" death. In fact, they clarified it in the movie script, > > probably for this very reason, although it damaged the flow of the > > speech irreparably ('put a stopper in death,' indeed). > > > > To "stopper death" is to put death in a bottle; it's a poetic way of > > saying "to put death in a bottle and put the stopper in." Stopper = > > the cork, the thing on top of the bottle. > > I want to make a point: in my tranlated version it says "stop death" > (liberal translation, but very exact). I was just translating from > there, and repeating from memory what has been mentioned from time to > time in the list. Just so I don't look *completely* stupid. Anyway, in > the film, "put a stopper to death" still means the same I understood > from my version: prevent death from occouring, at least to my alien > understanding (D*mned English language!). I have to say that my interpretation of this has always agreed with Grey Wolf's. I read it as to confine death, as it were, so that it can't get out. (It comes at the end of a short list of things that are for the benefit of the potion-maker (fame, glory) with which immortality would go well. And the CWMNBN version seems to confirm this, at least to my ears. OTOH, I can see where Amanda's coming from, and remembering that this is in the context of Potions, it makes a lot of sense (particularly since we've just had brewing and bottling mentioned). But the bottom line is that I think JKR's got a very nice bit of poetic speech going on there, which if analysed stirictly, as Amanda has, can be interpreted to say what it is not intended to say (hence the change. Surely she wouldn't have permitted a change in the script which completely reversed her meaning). But I *do* agree with your other LOON point, Amanda! I know this has just been discussed in another thread, but I don't think we can say that the Restricted Section is *per se* the Dark Arts section. I would imagine that, for instance, books containing information on how to become an Animagus would be in that section. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Thu Jun 13 11:11:14 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:11:14 -0000 Subject: Animagi and transfiguration In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39792 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > > Huh? What does being registered on unregistered have to do with > retaining one's human intelligence while in Animagus form? > Registered just means you go down to the Ministry and fill out a > little form saying "I'm an Animagus, this is what I turn into." > It's a bureaucratic procedure, not an aspect of the transformation. > I fear we have misunderstanding piled on misunderstanding. The point is that in QTTA Whisp makes a distinction between transfiguration and the animagus transformation. I don't have the book with me but the wording is pretty careful, and the sense is (speaking of finding ways to fly): "One the one hand, very few wizards have ever managed the animagus transformation, so that is not a realistic option for most; on the other hand, transfiguration is not an option either, because if you are transfigured into a flying animal you only have the brain of that animal." Clear? Marianne's point, as I understand it, was merely that Rita is an animagus (as it happens, unregistered, which was Marianne's way of remembering that fact as it came up in earlier discussions here), and therefore keeps her faculties. Much more difficult to explain, therefore, are 1) what Sirius means when he says he was able to fool the Dementors by transforming to a dog: explanations tend to be based on the distinction between 'mind' and 'emotions', a difficult one to maintain, IMO; and 2) how Krum could keep his wits when he partly transfigured himself into a shark. The logical explanation would be that he thinks with another part of his anatomy than his brain - any suggestions? ;-) Finally, one wonders how much of his 'punishment' Draco actually remembers. David From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Jun 13 11:35:55 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 07:35:55 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quirrell (was: Voldemort's Resurrection ) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39793 Ali: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > > Suzanne Chiles says: > > > > IIRC, Quirrel had the been the DADA teacher for some years and > had > > > > been regarded as a very fine teacher. It was only after his > > research > > > > trip to Albania that things went bad. > > > > > > > > Zo? > > > > > Grey Wolf replies: > > > We have been repeatedly told that the DADA teacher position has > > been > > > jinxed and that Snape has been after it for years. I always > assumed > > > that Quirrell had just come back from an extended visit to > Albania > > > (i.e. a year or more long), and that something had happened to > the > > > previous DADA teacher too. There may even be canon one way or the > > > other. We'll have to relay on someone else for this matter, > though, > > > since I cannot remember at this moment if it's just my feeling or > > > something more canonical. Any takers? > > > > I agree that PS/SS could be read either as 'Quirrel's just got the > > job' or 'Quirrel's been in the job for years and has just taken a > > sabbatical', but in CoS it gets clarified by Hagrid: > > > > "Gettin' very difficult ter find anyone fer the Dark Arts job....No > > one's lasted long fer a while now." (CoS, UK paperback p.88) > > > > Which implies Quirrell had only just got the job in PS/SS. > > Actually, I disagree here, although I admit that canon is confusing. > Quirrell is not introduced as a new teacher, which he probably would > have been had he just taken up the post. Also, when Harry first meets > Quirrell in the Leaky Cauldron Hagrid tells him that Quirrell *is* a > teacher at Hogwarts, rather than he is going to be a teacher at > Hogwarts. Finally, when Harry asks Percy who the teacher sitting next > to Quirrell is, during the banquet, Percy says (memory here not > verbatim), so you already know Professor Quirrell. This implies to me > that Percy already knows Quirrell, which he probably wouldn't if > Quirrell was just starting. Two more pieces of canon. 1)When Hagrid talks about Quirrell after introducing him, it is obvious that he is familiar with him (implicitly from Hogwarts) - he's 'usually' trembling; 'never been the same since' (implying he knew what he was like before he went); 'scared of the students' (if not at Hogwarts, then how does Hagrid know?) 2) GOF, 567 (UK HB) 'Then...four years ago...the means for my return seemed assured. A wizard - young, foolish and gullible - wandered across my path in the forest I had made my home. Oh, he seemed the very chance I had been dreaming of... for he was a teacher at Dumbledore's school...' I thought this was going to sort it all out, but now I'm not so sure. The implication is that he's on a sabbatical from Hogwarts, but it *could* mean, I suppose that he had simply been appointed, rather than already taught there. But the interesting thing, of course, is that his trip to Albania is immediately before Harry's first year, so, if this was part of the sabbatical, how did Hagrid already know that he was scared of his students? (If the sabbatical happened earlier, then why did he put on his p-p-poor nervous Q-quirrel act?) Ooh....I think I've found a FLINT! Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Jun 13 11:48:11 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:48:11 -0000 Subject: Spying game/ Vodemort's resurrection/ Animagi In-Reply-To: <163.f1e6355.2a39cf8d@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39794 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > But what if the first prediction indicated the way in which Voldemort would > rise again? Dumbledore is very ready to accept the genuine nature of Trelawney's second prediction. Is this because it meshed in so >well with the first? He is ready to accept the genuiness of the second prediction because it has already come to pass. So, when he refers to a first true prediction, he presumably knows it to be true because it has already come to pass. (Meaning that it can't be anything to do with how Voldemort will rise again, or, for that matter with anything that is yet to happen.) > > Eloise: > Oh yes, this is terribly personal for Severus. But that doesn't exclude the possibility that it was happening against the background of a greater plan. > After all, even if they *were* planning to send Pettigrew back, Dumbledore and Snape both apparently believed at this point that > >Sirius was guilty. This I find really hard to understand. Dumbledore and Snape at this point know that Pettigrew is alive, is Scabbers and is a Voldemort follower. When Lupin found out, he immediately concluded that if Pettigrew is alive, then it means that the Secret Keeper had been switched. Why wouldn't Dumbledore reache that same conlusion the minute he realized that Pettigrew was alive? And if so, why on earth should he still suspect Sirius of anything? The only thing that threw suspicion on Sirius was that he was known to betray the Potters. But if he wasn't the Secret Keeper, then he couldn't betray them, right? Which leaves him spotlessly on the Light Side. If Dumbledore had known Pettigrew to be alive, he would have immediately forced him into human form, marched him into MoM and got Sirius released. To to otherwise would have been both very dishonorable and horribly cruel. > > Eloise: > There is obviously a time-restraint here and I think Debbie's explanation is > eminently reasonable. However.... > > >because (and I realize here that there are those who believe >>differently, but > >I think this is what JKR intended) the Time-Turner can't be used to *change* > >history; it creates simultaneous histories for the users of the Time-Turner. > > >So Dumbledore shuts everyone up so H&H can get on with it ASAP. > > Eloise: > You lose me here. I thought that you could (according to the story) > and that this was what Hermione meant when she said, > 'We're breaking one of the most important wizarding laws! Nobody's supposed to change time, nobody! You heard Dumbledore, if we're seen - > ' (POA, UK paperback, 291-2) I don't remember this quote specifically, but I think she is *warning* Harry against doing anything that changes history (like allowing anybody to see them). > > Now if the Time-Turner merely creates simultaneous histories for the user, doesn't this mean that as far as Dumbledore, Hagrid, Fudge etc, who haven't used the Tim-Turner, Sirius is indeed worse than dead? > No, it doesn't create simultaneous histories. What happened in PoA is that Buckbeak had never been executed. Ever. When Dumbledore had gone out with the Mcnair, Buckbeak was not there. He was not there because Future!Hary and Hermione had taken him. At the moment that Dumbledore is outside, Future!Harry and Hermione are standing a few meters from him, holding their breath. At that point, Dumbledore (I'd think) had no idea but that Buckbeak had somehow chewed through the rope. Only later, when confronted with the problem of saving Sirius, did it click, and he realized the whole Time Turner plan. That is, he had seen in the past the outcome of a plan he would hatch in the future. Naama From fiatincantatum at attbi.com Thu Jun 13 12:18:04 2002 From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:18:04 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Evil!Minerva? - I think NOT, Names have meaning in Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3D08553C.29165.FC85406@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 39795 On 12 Jun 2002 at 1:11, Linda C. McCabe wrote: > > And then as the Goddess was ready to retire to her chambers, she notices a > name meaning that sends alarm bells off. Professor Sinestra: The Latin > sinister meant "on the left," or more often, "unlucky." Something that is > sinister in Modern English means it is evil or suggestive of evil. The > left side was often associated with evil or bad luck in Roman and other > ancient cultures. > > Ooooh, many wild theories have been woven with less yarn than this. I know this one! The name is actually a valid (if medieval) astronomical concept. To whit: "According to the Aristotelian convention as established in the De Caelo and under stood in the Middle Ages, absolute "up" in the cosmos correspond to the Southern Hemisphere; from this perspective absolute "right' is associated with the East, from which the heavens initiate their apparent movement across the sky; and clockwise motion a sinistra in the Northern Hemisphere is therefore movement to the "right' and only apparently to the left. " That's from a discussion of Dante's Inferno, the rest of which is irrelevant here, the reference to the De Caelo is the important bit. The stars move "a sinistra", to the left or towards the west. Using this, Sinistra would seem to be a perfectly understandable surname for a professor of Astronomy. Anyone wishing to read for themselves will find an English translation of Aristotle's De Caelo ("Of the Heavens") here: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/heavens.1.i.html -- Fiat Incantatum fiatincantatum at attbi.com The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason. T. S. Eliot "Murder in the Cathedral" From aiz24 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 13 12:43:25 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:43:25 -0400 Subject: What Hermione doesn't understand (was The Spying Game) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39796 Debbie wrote: >There's a lot Hermione doesn't understand, including the fact that Snape >has >the revenge he wants in his grasp and he's not going to ruin it by hearing >his prisoners' story. Moreover, this remark comes right after Hermione >suggests that there's been a mistake. But to Snape, there can be no such >thing as a mistake, because that would take away his revenge. So he tries >to >tell her she doesn't understand. To me, this explanation makes perfect >sense. Also, as far as Snape is concerned, Hermione is a "know-it-all": someone who by definition acts as if she knows more than she really does. Also, Snape may know a piece of the story that he thinks Hermione doesn't know: that Black betrayed her best friend's parents. Add to this the likelihood that Snape was the spy who tipped off James and Lily, and we get a Snape who is very personally involved in this drama and has been for 13 years. In his mind, he is the champion of the Potters (who keep getting themselves killed in spite of his best efforts), while this naive girl is friends with Harry but doesn't even know the *real* story behind him, his parents, and Black. And he would be right, except that Hermione *does* know the story thanks to Fudge. In any case, it makes perfect sense for Snape to say to Hermione, "don't talk about what you don't understand." Amy Z _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk Thu Jun 13 12:50:28 2002 From: A.E.B.Bevan at open.ac.uk (edisbevan) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:50:28 -0000 Subject: Time turner - how dont they know? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39797 Something bothering me about the TT. In order to get the TT and do extra lessons Hermione has to gets special permission from the Ministry and make some pretty specific promises. mcG had to write lots of letetrs to get the TT depolyment agreed. The concept of a TT must therefore be known to at least some schools staff and ministry officials and is likely to be known to others apart from McG and Dumbledore. But when in PoA Snape is screaming angry about the escape of Sirius, Dumbledore cuts his tirade short asking how Snape can suggest Harry can be in two places at once ... and the Minister himself doesn't take this point up. And does McG query what is or could have been going on when Hermione returns the TT at the end of the book? No suspicions? Confundus! Edis From suzchiles at pobox.com Thu Jun 13 12:55:00 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 05:55:00 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Time turner - how dont they know? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39798 > -----Original Message----- > But when in PoA Snape is screaming angry about the escape of Sirius, > Dumbledore cuts his tirade short asking how Snape can suggest Harry > can be in two places at once ... and the Minister himself doesn't > take this point up. And does McG query what is or could have been > going on when Hermione returns the TT at the end of the book? No > suspicions? Would you expect George Bush or Tony Blair to know about every agreement made at a lower level of the bureaucracy? Not that the MoM is as large as either of these two governments, but I'm sure that like any other bureaucracy, the right hand doesn't necessarily know what the left hand is doing. Zo From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Jun 13 13:00:34 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:00:34 -0000 Subject: Time turner - how dont they know? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39799 Edis wrote: > Something bothering me about the TT. > > In order to get the TT and do extra lessons Hermione has to gets > special permission from the Ministry and make some pretty specific > promises. mcG had to write lots of letetrs to get the TT depolyment > agreed. > > The concept of a TT must therefore be known to at least some schools > staff and ministry officials and is likely to be known to others > apart from McG and Dumbledore. > > But when in PoA Snape is screaming angry about the escape of Sirius, > Dumbledore cuts his tirade short asking how Snape can suggest Harry > can be in two places at once ... and the Minister himself doesn't > take this point up. And does McG query what is or could have been > going on when Hermione returns the TT at the end of the book? No > suspicions? > > Confundus! > > Edis I'd imagine that the responsability for giving TimeTurners (TTs) fall in a specific branch of the MoM, and that the problem, although serious, is more a case of paper-shuffling and burocracy than asking the Minister for explicit permission. Thus, is very possible that Fudge didn't know about the TT, or if he did, he only knew that one had been given out. Since he is, nonetheless, a petty politician who has reached his optimun level of incompetence, he probably doesn't know or care who received the TT, and hopes that, like all his other problems, it will resolve on it's own. Resuming: the information of the TT never got as high as Fudge. It is lost in the buroracy of the MoM. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who believes that Eloise has found a real FLINT in the Quirrell thread. From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 13 13:00:47 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:00:47 -0000 Subject: Time turner - how dont they know? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39800 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "edisbevan" wrote: > Something bothering me about the TT. > >> > Dumbledore cuts his tirade short asking how Snape can suggest Harry > can be in two places at once ... and the Minister himself doesn't > take this point up. And does McG query what is or could have been > going on when Hermione returns the TT at the end of the book? No > suspicions? > > Confundus! > > Edis I would think that will all that is going on at the time, it is just a detail that is lost. I was also under the impression that the only people at Hogwarts that knew about the TT were McGonnagal and Dumbledore. Since the "being in two places at once" was a referal to Harry and not Hermione, the association was not made. I also think that Fudge doesn't really have a clue what is going on when it comes to most Ministry business, unless it is of "major" importance and is going to make him look good. Gretchen From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Jun 13 13:04:20 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:04:20 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Spying game/ Vodemort's resurrection/ Time Turner/ etc Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39801 Naama: > > > > Eloise: > > Oh yes, this is terribly personal for Severus. But that doesn't > exclude the possibility that it was happening against the background > of a greater plan. > > After all, even if they *were* planning to send Pettigrew back, > Dumbledore and Snape both apparently believed at this point that > > >Sirius was guilty. > > This I find really hard to understand. Dumbledore and Snape at this > point know that Pettigrew is alive, is Scabbers and is a Voldemort > follower. When Lupin found out, he immediately concluded that if > Pettigrew is alive, then it means that the Secret Keeper had been > switched. Why wouldn't Dumbledore reache that same conlusion the > minute he realized that Pettigrew was alive? And if so, why on earth > should he still suspect Sirius of anything? The only thing that threw > suspicion on Sirius was that he was known to betray the Potters. But > if he wasn't the Secret Keeper, then he couldn't betray them, right? > Eloise: I *think* (although I'm not certain) that we're talking about different points in the action. No, on consideration, perhaps we're not. You mean that Snape and Dumbledore know because that's a premise of Pip's theory? When I say 'at this point', I mean in the Shack, and this is in the context that a) I don't but the MAGIC DISHWASHER idea at present (which is probably contributing to my well-known tendency to get confused, or at least not to express myself very well), so that according to conventional interpretation, Snape and Dumbledore *did* both believe in his guilt, and b) even if I did buy it, it is still possible, as Porphyria pointed out (I don't know where to find the original amongst Pip's many posts!) that Snape, at the least (and therefore by implication Dumbledore) think they are *both* guilty and that the show-down was a falling out between two villains: > Pip has suggested that perhaps Snape >thought Peter and Sirius were *both* traitors to the Potters and that >their eventual spat was simply a double-cross among crooks However, I have sort of implied, or at the least, it's in the background of my thinking (I metioned it IIRC in the context of the reurrection potion) that I can see, in theory, at least, Snape and Dumbledore manipulating events to their advantage within a framework of what is unchangeable (e.g. they know that Voldemort *is* predicted to rise again and they can't do anything about that in itself, but they can do things to limit the damage). So even if I don't buy the full MAGIC DISHWASHER, I still can conceive that Snape's personal vendetta is not incompatible with a larger plan. Naama: > If Dumbledore had known Pettigrew to be alive, he would have > immediately forced him into human form, marched him into MoM and got > Sirius released. To to otherwise would have been both very > Eloise: Hey, this isn't my theory! I happen to agree! It doesn't stop me liking to see and play with the possibilities of other people's theories, though. Even if I'm not rushing straight out for my own MAGIC DISHWASHER, putting a few of my own ideas through Pip's has added some clarity to them. At least for me. I think we're coming at this from different directions. I've been splashing round Theory Bay too long, so (or because) I'm sympathetic to subversive, or even multiple interpretations of the same canon evidence. When it comes to things like this, I'm not particularly looking for the *right* interpretation and some of what looks like muddled thinking on my part is the effect of entertaining and playing with ideas which I'm simply not sure about. I tend to think on paper - or screen ;-). At other times, of course, I'm simply muddled ;-) and you can choose to interpret all my posts like that if you wish! ;-) Naama: > > > > > Eloise: > > There is obviously a time-restraint here and I think Debbie's > explanation is > > eminently reasonable. However.... > > >Debbie: > > >because (and I realize here that there are those who believe > >>differently, but > > >I think this is what JKR intended) the Time-Turner can't be used > to *change* > > >history; it creates simultaneous histories for the users of the > Time-Turner. > > > > >So Dumbledore shuts everyone up so H&H can get on with it ASAP. > > > > Eloise: > > You lose me here. I thought that you could (according to the story) > > and that this was what Hermione meant when she said, > > 'We're breaking one of the most important wizarding laws! Nobody's > supposed to change time, nobody! You heard Dumbledore, if we're seen - > > ' (POA, UK paperback, 291-2) > > I don't remember this quote specifically, but I think she is > *warning* Harry against doing anything that changes history (like > I assure you it's there! ;-) And I think it's accurate. I don't understand how being seen is changing history and releasing a condemned Hippogriff just before its execution is not. And Hermione says, 'we *are* breaking', not 'we *mustn't* break'. The trouble is these things become circular. So circular, in fact that changing history becomes an impossibility because you've already done it. Don't ask me to go any further...... > > > > > Now if the Time-Turner merely creates simultaneous histories for > the user, doesn't this mean that as far as Dumbledore, Hagrid, Fudge > etc, who haven't used the Time-Turner, Sirius is indeed worse than > dead? > > > Naama: > No, it doesn't create simultaneous histories. What happened in PoA is > that Buckbeak had never been executed. Ever. When Dumbledore had gone > out with the Mcnair, Buckbeak was not there. He was not there because > Future!Hary and Hermione had taken him. At the moment that Dumbledore > is outside, Future!Harry and Hermione are standing a few meters from > him, holding their breath. > At that point, Dumbledore (I'd think) had no idea but that Buckbeak > had somehow chewed through the rope. Only later, when confronted with > the problem of saving Sirius, did it click, and he realized the whole > Time Turner plan. That is, he had seen in the past the outcome of a > That's the best explanation I've seen so far. Now, returning to LOON mode, this is something where there *is* a right answer! Pip: > > In the Potions class, Hermione offers to help Neville, and Snape > cuts her off > > coldly with the comment that he didn't ask her to show off. > Hermione went > > pink and shut up. > > Errr... no, she doesn't. She helps Neville when he asks her by > hissing instructions at him out of the side of her mouth. I guess > this is an example of the way two people can read a scene in totally > different ways - because to me the point here is that Snape > *doesn't* push it. He doesn't take House points off Gryffindor here - > even though he shows later in the Boggart class that he was perfectly > Since Debbie's gone to bed, I'll defend her :-) POA (UK PB, 96) "'Please, sir,' said Hermione, 'please, I could help Neville put it right - ' 'I don't remember asking you to show off, Miss Granger,' said Snape, coldly, and Hermione went as pink as Neville." ..................... Edis: > The concept of a TT must therefore be known to at least some schools > staff and ministry officials and is likely to be known to others > apart from McG and Dumbledore. > > But when in PoA Snape is screaming angry about the escape of Sirius, > Dumbledore cuts his tirade short asking how Snape can suggest Harry > can be in two places at once ... and the Minister himself doesn't > take this point up. And does McG query what is or could have been > going on when Hermione returns the TT at the end of the book? No > No. It's a wonderful bluff. Worthy of Crouch Jr, in fact. He presents the answer on a plate in such a way that no-one would possibly consider it. Of *course* they couldn't be in two places at once - they'd need a Time-Turner for that! And where could school children have got hold of such a restricted item? Eloise Off to the real world to do boring things without the aid of magic appliances (and rather sorry that she and Naama always seem to be disagreeing). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 13 13:06:22 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:06:22 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39802 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > > No, no matter how I look at it, it still seems that Dumbledore > > would've done much better to clear Sirius and hand Wormtail over to > > the Dementors. The benefits of the life-debt just don't outweigh > > the resulting drawbacks. (Well, there's a good chance that the > > life-debt will be crucial in the end, because of the foreshadowing > > JKR has done about it, but that's metathinking. :-) > > > > Part of successful strategy is knowing when *not* to make a move, > > when to sit tight and let the enemy dig his own grave. From that > > perspective, it seems that Voldemort proved to be the better > > stragetist post-PS/SS, patiently biding his time in Albania until > > Dumbledore obligingly sent him a willing servant. > > > > Except Voldemort didn't patiently bide his time.... > > In CoS Dumbledore says: > "What interests me most is how Lord Voldemort managed to enchant > Ginny..." > > [This is a Voldemort plan] > > At the beginning of PoA Dumbledore has just fought a battle in CoS > with Lord Voldemort; Voldemort came close to killing Harry, nearly > closed Hogwarts, caused one of Dumbledore's most loyal supporters to > be carted off to Azkaban, showed the DE's have enough influence to > (temporarily) remove Dumbledore from Hogwarts, nearly ruined the > Weasley's standing, and only failed to kill several students by the > most incredible good luck. I still think the events of CoS were planned by Diary!Voldemort, not Vapor!Voldemort, but even if I'm wrong, that doesn't mean everyone isn't better off for the time being with a disembodied Voldemort. Because the bottom line is, Harry is still a kid who, at the time of PoA, hasn't even figured out Accio yet. He's nowhere near ready to defeat Voldemort. A certain amount of time must pass befor he's ready. Now, Voldemort can spend that time as a vapor, or in a body. Even if he is active and dangerous as a vapor, that's nothing compared to how active and dangerous he's going to be in a body. It's all very well for Dumbledore to say, "he's mortal now, we can kill him," but they can't kill him, because their big weapon is sitting in the infirmary trying not cry. > > Part of successful strategy is knowing when you *have* to make a > move; sending Voldemort Peter turned Voldemort's mind towards > regaining his body, rather than making further (and more successful) > attacks on Hogwarts. Allowing Voldemort to regain a body isn't going to stop him from making further attacks on Hogwarts. It will only allow him to make bigger, better, stronger attacks while Harry is still in no position to stop him permanently. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From elfundeb at aol.com Thu Jun 13 13:08:35 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:08:35 EDT Subject: Time-Turner (WAS Spying game/ Vodemort's resurrection/ Animagi Message-ID: <6e.1df61bff.2a39f353@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39803 In a message dated 6/13/2002 6:36:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Edblanning at aol.com writes: > You lose me here. I thought that you could (according to the story) and that > this was what Hermione meant when she said, > 'We're breaking one of the most important wizarding laws! Nobody's supposed > to change time, nobody! You heard Dumbledore, if we're seen - ' (POA, UK > paperback, 291-2) > > Now if the Time-Turner merely creates simultaneous histories for the user, > doesn't this mean that as far as Dumbledore, Hagrid, Fudge etc, who haven't > used the Tim-Turner, Sirius is indeed worse than dead? > > The only way I can get my head round that at all is by slipping back into > multiple world theories - helpfully also known as alternative histories - > (is this a case of Schrodinger's Dog, rather than Cat?) But again, I have > the > problem that the Dumbledore who sent them on their mission belongs to the > world where Buckbeak *was* executed. If they are creating a simultaneous > history, then that implies that there is a history where Sirius *is* > kissed..... Doesn't it? ....genuine question, because I start to get > confused > when I think about this too long. ;-) And Naama responded > No, it doesn't create simultaneous histories. What happened in PoA is > that Buckbeak had never been executed. Ever. When Dumbledore had gone > out with Mcnair, Buckbeak was not there. He was not there because > Future!Hary and Hermione had taken him. At the moment that Dumbledore > is outside, Future!Harry and Hermione are standing a few meters from > him, holding their breath. > At that point, Dumbledore (I'd think) had no idea but that Buckbeak > had somehow chewed through the rope. Only later, when confronted with > the problem of saving Sirius, did it click, and he realized the whole > Time Turner plan. That is, he had seen in the past the outcome of a > plan he would hatch in the future. > Naama is exactly right, except that I probably should explain the "simultaneous histories" statement. There was only one time period from 9 p.m. to midnight. But Harry and Hermione had two simultaneous existences during that time frame. They experienced the events consecutively, first as HH1, unaware of the existence of HH2, and then again as HH2 but fully cognizant that HH1 also were out on the grounds. But there is only one set of events and, as Naama points out, Buckbeak was never executed. We (and HH1) think he was, but it was Macnair throwing the axe into the stump offstage. As for Sirius, who like Dumbledore, Buckbeak, Macnair and everyone else except Hermione and Harry only lives the events once, the timetable makes clear that HH2 effect his escape before the Dementor arrives. At the beginning of ch. 22, HH2 overhear Snape telling Fudge, "The Kiss will be performed immediately." But Sirius is already gone at this point, having escaped at the end of ch. 21. I think a lot of the confusion about the Time-Turner arises because of Hermione's reference to changing time. It's hard to decipher exactly what she means, but it could simply refer to the fact that every time Hermione uses the Time-Turner, she changes what time it is for herself. However, there's nothing about the Time-Turner's actual use that suggests it can be used to change events that have already occurred. The bigger Time-Turner issue, IMO, is the one raised by Hermione's comment that the greatest problem with the Time-Turner is people killing their former or future selves. What happens then? Do both Time-Turner users die? And then there's the problem of getting back to the same place when your Time-Turned time is up. Even Hermione had trouble managing that, at least at first. (See ch. 7 -- "One minute you were right behind us, the next moment, you were back at the bottom of the stairs again.") I've never figured out how she managed this at all in a crowded corridor. > Incidentally, the whole Time-Turner incident does show that Dumbldore is > already, in POA, prepared to act (or encourage acts) outside the law if he > sees fit. Absolutely. But Dumbledore very purposefully does not tell Harry and Hermione what to do. He merely reminds them of the tools at their disposal ("What we need . . . is more time") and only after Hermione makes clear ("OH!") that she understands what she needs to do, Dumbledore gives them specific information (Sirius' location, the possibility of saving two innocent lives, a reminder of the prohibition on being seen and how much time they need) to carry out what he knows they will try to do. This is his modus operandi -- to lay out information that allows others to make their own choices and trusting them. I just can't see him devising the kind of elaborate plans. Debbie, needing to run off to children's school, where she will contemplate the Snape/Quirreldemort conundrum [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nicholaswebb at hotmail.com Thu Jun 13 13:29:15 2002 From: nicholaswebb at hotmail.com (ghastrick) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:29:15 -0000 Subject: Quirrell (was: Voldemort's Resurrection ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39804 IIRC, Quirrel had the been the DADA teacher for some years and had been regarded as a very fine teacher. It was only after a research trip to Albania that things went bad. Zo? Grey Wolf replies: We have been repeatedly told that the DADA teacher position has been jinxed and that Snape has been after it for years. I always assumed that Quirrell had just come back from an extended visit to Albania (i.e. a year or more long), and that something had happened to the previous DADA teacher too. There may even be canon one way or the other. We'll have to relay on someone else for this matter, though, since I cannot remember at this moment if it's just my feeling or something more canonical. Any takers? I agree that PS/SS could be read either as 'Quirrel's just got the job' or 'Quirrel's been in the job for years and has just taken a sabbatical', but in CoS it gets clarified by Hagrid: "Gettin' very difficult ter find anyone fer the Dark Arts job....No one's lasted long fer a while now." (CoS, UK paperback p.88) Which implies Quirrell had only just got the job in PS/SS. Actually, I disagree here, although I admit that canon is confusing. Quirrell is not introduced as a new teacher, which he probably would have been had he just taken up the post. Also, when Harry first meets Quirrell in the Leaky Cauldron Hagrid tells him that Quirrell *is* a teacher at Hogwarts, rather than he is going to be a teacher at Hogwarts. Finally, when Harry asks Percy who the teacher sitting next to Quirrell is, during the banquet, Percy says (memory here not verbatim), so you already know Professor Quirrell. This implies to me that Percy already knows Quirrell, which he probably wouldn't if Quirrell was just starting. Two more pieces of canon. 1)When Hagrid talks about Quirrell after introducing him, it is obvious that he is familiar with him (implicitly from Hogwarts) - he's 'usually' trembling; 'never been the same since' (implying he knew what he was like before he went); 'scared of the students' (if not at Hogwarts, then how does Hagrid know?) 2) GOF, 567 (UK HB) 'Then...four years ago...the means for my return seemed assured. A wizard - young, foolish and gullible - wandered across my path in the forest I had made my home. Oh, he seemed the very chance I had been dreaming of... for he was a teacher at Dumbledore's school...' I thought this was going to sort it all out, but now I'm not so sure. The implication is that he's on a sabbatical from Hogwarts, but it *could* mean, I suppose that he had simply been appointed, rather than already taught there. But the interesting thing, of course, is that his trip to Albania is immediately before Harry's first year, so, if this was part of the sabbatical, how did Hagrid already know that he was scared of his students? (If the sabbatical happened earlier, then why did he put on his p-p-poor nervous Q-quirrel act?) Ooh....I think I've found a FLINT! Eloise ___________________________________________________________________ Perhaps Quirrell was the Wizard equivelent of a grad-student. He was still learning advanced DADA at Hogwarts but had begun teaching classes under the observation of the previous professor. Hagrid says of him, "Brilliant mind... He was fine when he was studyin outta books but then he took a year off to get some first hand experience." If Quirrell was a student-teacher it would explain how he can be "scared of his students" while at the same time only beginning his job as a professor. As to the conundrum of why Hagrid knew Quirrel was scared of his students when he hadn't even begun his first post-sabbatical teaching year, well, we know that Hogwarts does allow for some students to stay in school over the summer (Because Tom Riddle asked for this privelege in CoS). So perhaps Quirrell taught summer school as preparation for assuming his full professorship. Nick From editor at texas.net Thu Jun 13 13:40:29 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 08:40:29 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort's Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack References: Message-ID: <009201c212df$e2888540$947663d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39805 Marina said > I still think the events of CoS were planned by Diary!Voldemort, not > Vapor!Voldemort, I must agree with this. In fact, I've always thought it might have been a Lucius Malfoy plan, to sow havoc at the school and get Dumbledore removed. I always considered Lucius the sort who constantly made trouble of the polite, diplomatic, take-up-your-time and obstructive type. Planting the diary to create this larger problem, to then get Dumbledore removed so that (presumably) Malfoy can step in, would do great things for the Dark cause. It would remove the most powerful wizard known, from a very influential position. It would also make it look, when and if Voldemort showed back up, as if Malfoy had actually been *doing* something to support the cause instead of just skulking and not looking for Voldemort. --Amanda From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Jun 13 13:44:05 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:44:05 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39806 Marina wrote: > I still think the events of CoS were planned by Diary!Voldemort, not > Vapor!Voldemort, but even if I'm wrong, that doesn't mean everyone > isn't better off for the time being with a disembodied Voldemort. > Because the bottom line is, Harry is still a kid who, at the time of > PoA, hasn't even figured out Accio yet. He's nowhere near ready to > defeat Voldemort. A certain amount of time must pass befor he's > ready. Now, Voldemort can spend that time as a vapor, or in a body. > Even if he is active and dangerous as a vapor, that's nothing > compared to how active and dangerous he's going to be in a body. > It's all very well for Dumbledore to say, "he's mortal now, we can > kill him," but they can't kill him, because their big weapon is > sitting in the infirmary trying not cry. You're entitled, of course, you opinion on who planned the diary idea in CoS, but the thing is that it fits very well with the rest of MAGIC DISHWASHER, but really is a minor point. What I would like to discuss in this occasion, however, it's your comment on Voldemort's danger level. He has demonstrated again and again during four books that he's very active and dangerous in the vapour form. Dumbledore doesn't want him to continue to exist in that form, so it's necessary to have him transform into soimething killable. That's the basis of Pip's theory. >From a short-term point of view, Voldemort is indeed a little bit more dangerous than in gas form (I, however, tend to take the computer science view of reality (1/0): either it's dangerous, or it isn't, so things haven't changed much from were I stand), but Dumbledore isn't looking with short-term view. He's looking the long-term view: something needs to be done about Voldemort,and the first step is necessarily having him change back into a mortal again. Unfortunately, Voldemort is not easily guided nowhere, especially not by his sworn enemies, so, even if Dumbledore has managed to bull him into following a path that has made him mortal and with a flaw, Dumbledore has not been able to make him follow the best possible timetable, and indeed the greatest weapon in Dumbledore's plan is in the infirmary. The fact that it's the greatest implies, however, that there are others, so Dumbledore isn't betting everything here. He still has plans B, C, etc. waiting. > > Part of successful strategy is knowing when you *have* to make a > > move; sending Voldemort Peter turned Voldemort's mind towards > > regaining his body, rather than making further (and more successful) > > attacks on Hogwarts. > > Allowing Voldemort to regain a body isn't going to stop him from > making further attacks on Hogwarts. It will only allow him to make > bigger, better, stronger attacks while Harry is still in no position > to stop him permanently. > > Marina No, the A plan: Voldemort regains his body, is not intended to stop Voldemort from attaking Hogwarts, nor (I hope) have I implied such thing. The A plan is intended to make Voldemort mortal and in a flawed sort of way so that, down the line (in three years time, to be precise, even if none of the involved know it yet), Voldemort can be utterly destoyed. The fact is that with body or without it, Voldemort has been able to make continued attacks against Hogwarts and other magical places (Gringotts) for the last four years. Maybe his attacks will be more powerfull now, yes, but he's back to the level of power he had 15 years ago, at a time we have been told "Hogwarts was one of the few safe places". So he still hasn't power enough to make a frontal attack against Hogwarts. We already know the sort of back-handed (terrorist, spying) attacks he makes, and so does Dumbledore, so things haven't changed that much, since the fact that he has more power as a mortal than he had as a wraith is not going to be an isue: he's not going to lead, he's going to scheme in the background and let his minions do the bleeding (which is exactly his style. Remember the showdown words of Dumbledore in PS). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From aiz24 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 13 15:25:44 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:25:44 -0400 Subject: Time-Turner Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39807 Eloise wrote: >It's a wonderful bluff. Worthy of Crouch Jr, in fact. He presents the >answer on a plate in such a way that no-one would possibly consider >it. Of >*course* they couldn't be in two places at once - they'd need a > >Time-Turner for that! And where could school children have got hold of > >such a restricted item? That works well for Fudge, since I agree that he probably has no knowledge of the decision to permit Hermione a Time Turner. But Snape? Snape has been teaching Hermione all year. Surely it is running a very great risk to imagine that in a year of shooting bull in the staffroom, none of the teachers have ever noticed that two of them have Hermione Granger at the same time? Uh oh. I'm making a good case for the Snape/Dumbledore tag team, aren't I? OK, on to the dizziness-inducing aspect of Time Turners, where I very possibly have no clue what I'm talking about. Eloise wrote: > >But again, I have > > the > > problem that the Dumbledore who sent them on their mission belongs to >the > > world where Buckbeak *was* executed. If they are creating a simultaneous > > history, then that implies that there is a history where Sirius *is* > > kissed..... Doesn't it? ....genuine question, because I start to get > > confused > > when I think about this too long. ;-) And Naama responded: > > No, it doesn't create simultaneous histories. What happened in PoA is > > that Buckbeak had never been executed. Ever. I can't agree with the statement "Buckbeak was never executed" unless it is paired with its paradoxical partner: Buckbeak WAS executed. Both realities are true. Otherwise, what is the point of using a Time Turner? Just to gain yourself a few extra hours each day? But why would you even have to do that? Hermione "already was" in both Muggle Studies and Divination (or whatever classes met at the same time). If her using the Time Turner doesn't change anything, why use it? I know it goes round in circles, but the fact is that life with a TT is not the same as life without one. Something *has* been changed, though we can't say *when* it was changed because time as we usually speak of it has lost its meaning. Otherwise, in that first scene in the hospital wing, Dumbledore would just smile at Harry and Hermione and say "Don't worry, you already fixed everything." >I think a lot of the confusion about the Time-Turner arises because of >Hermione's reference to changing time. It's hard to decipher exactly what >she means, but it could simply refer to the fact that every time Hermione >uses the Time-Turner, she changes what time it is for herself. However, >there's nothing about the Time-Turner's actual use that suggests it can be >used to change events that have already occurred. I think there is. One, there is the warning--in saving Buckbeak and Sirius, Harry and Hermione are doing exactly what they are not supposed to do, and so they need to make the change as narrow as possible. No fooling around with Pettigrew or the Invisibility Cloak or anything else Harry's tempted to do, because this is already a risky business. Two, we are mistaken when we think of "change events" as referring only to BIG things: saving someone who would have died, removing an Invisibility Cloak that someone would have used. Really, *any* overlapping of time changes the way things were. The second Harry and Hermione flip over the Time Turner, they have changed things. Different atoms are now swirling around the Entrance Hall. Most of the changes won't bear visible fruit, but that doesn't mean they aren't real, and we have no way of knowing which ones will be important and which will be unimportant. Amy Z _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Jun 13 16:47:32 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:47:32 -0000 Subject: Time-Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39808 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > > OK, on to the dizziness-inducing aspect of Time Turners, where I very possibly have no clue what I'm talking about. > > Eloise wrote: > > > >But again, I have > > > the problem that the Dumbledore who sent them on their mission belongs to the world where Buckbeak *was* executed. If they are creating a simultaneous > > > history, then that implies that there is a history where Sirius *is* > > > kissed..... Doesn't it? ....genuine question, because I start to get > > > confused > > > when I think about this too long. ;-) > > And Naama responded: > > > > No, it doesn't create simultaneous histories. What happened in PoA is > > > that Buckbeak had never been executed. Ever. > > I can't agree with the statement "Buckbeak was never executed" unless it is paired with its paradoxical partner: Buckbeak WAS executed. Both realities are true. Otherwise, what is the point of using a Time Turner? Just to gain yourself a few extra hours each day? But why would you even have to do that? Hermione "already was" in both Muggle Studies and Divination (or whatever classes met at the same time). If her using the Time Turner doesn't change anything, >why use it? Because if she didn't use it, she wouldn't have already been in both lessons . Time travel is paradoxical and I don't presume even to present the paradox coherently. I am sure that there are other, much better qualified people here who can do that . The thing is, the paradox really arises only when trying to wrap the mind around *changing* the past. I mean, what *does* happen if you kill yourself in the past?! Do you just "softly and suddenly" vanish away? However, the way the story is told in PoA, Future!Harry and Hermione are not changing the past, they are creating it. And that's not really paradoxical (I think). > changes the way things were. The second Harry and Hermione flip >over the Time Turner, they have changed things. No. Because the past (and there is only one past) already includes the effect of their future selves. When Harry, Hermione and Ron had gone out (first time around) through the Hall, Future!Harry and Hermione are sitting in the cupboard. Whatever swirl the atoms were given by their arrival and their actions is happening around the under-the-cloak!trio. They are not aware of that, of course, but it is happening. Naama who loves Eloise's posts and often agrees with her, but, alas, is forced by group rules to keep silent on that :-) From bard7696 at aol.com Thu Jun 13 12:31:43 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:31:43 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Krum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39809 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > I asked: > > What's Hermione playing at with Viktor > > anyway? Is anybody really comfortable about her being in a > > relationship with a seventeen year old boy? > > Irene: > > >>>>Yes, I'm comfortable with what we have seen so far. > >She really needed someone who respects her love of learning > >and sees her on her own and not as a part of the trio.<<< > Let's try to break down what we are really talking about. We have a seventh-year going to a prom-type dance with a fourth-year. In American high school terms, we have a senior asking out a freshman, which happens WAY more than anyone would like to believe. And what really happened? They went. They talked over dinner. They had at least one dance. What didn't happen? They didn't end up in any of those bushes that Snape was busting apart. Hermione didn't get home too late. In fact, she made it home before Harry did, because he walked in on her and Ron fighting. I think Hermione's virtue is intact. Maybe for one night, Hermione enjoyed being appreciated for something other than her mind. Not only are her two best friends boys, she really has no interaction at all with other girls except Ginny Weasley. You get the impression that Lavender Brown and Parvati Partil, etc... have their own little girly clique, and Hermione is kind of the bookish tomboy, a younger Nancy Drew, except without the boyfriend Nick. For one night, she got to be a princess. Now, is Hermione going to turn into a party girl, even if she does see Viktor again? Come on, we're talking about a girl who once traveled through time to take more classes. She's Muggle-born in a world where that can limit you -- think of Hermione's future employment chances at the ministry so long as Fudge is there, for instance. Just like many minorities in the real Muggle world, she has to work twice as hard and knows it. I doubt seriously we're looking at the descent of Hermione here. As for Viktor, I wouldn't worry too much about him. In fact, I would hope this has been an eye-opener for him. Hermione is not a unique girl by any means; there are plenty of smart, pretty girls out there if you look hard enough. Maybe the Quidditch God will be a bit more selective when he gets back to Bulgaria. "darrin burnett" From bard7696 at aol.com Thu Jun 13 13:51:59 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:51:59 -0000 Subject: Time turner - how dont they know? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39810 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mrflynn6" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "edisbevan" wrote: > > Something bothering me about the TT. > > > >> > > > Dumbledore cuts his tirade short asking how Snape can suggest > Harry > > can be in two places at once ... and the Minister himself doesn't > > take this point up. And does McG query what is or could have been > > going on when Hermione returns the TT at the end of the book? No > > suspicions? > > > > Confundus! > > > > Edis > > > I would think that will all that is going on at the time, it is just > a detail that is lost. I was also under the impression that the only > people at Hogwarts that knew about the TT were McGonnagal and > Dumbledore. Since the "being in two places at once" was a referal to > Harry and not Hermione, the association was not made. I also think > that Fudge doesn't really have a clue what is going on when it comes > to most Ministry business, unless it is of "major" importance and is > going to make him look good. > > Gretchen Yes, but why wouldn't Snape know? I would think ALL the faculty members would have to be appraised of Hermione's schedule and the method she was using to take seven classes in a five-period week. And I would think Hermione taking two classes at once would be noticeable to more than just Harry and Ron. All the students in both classes would wonder about it too. But when Fudge said: "They can't be in two places at once" then it should have been Snape who got the light bulb off in his head. Of course, he'd have had to prove they mis-used the TT and maybe he wouldn't be able to. "darrin burnett" From divaclv at aol.com Thu Jun 13 16:00:06 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:00:06 -0000 Subject: Time turner - how dont they know? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39811 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > I'd imagine that the responsability for giving TimeTurners (TTs) fall > in a specific branch of the MoM, and that the problem, although > serious, is more a case of paper-shuffling and burocracy than asking > the Minister for explicit permission. Thus, is very possible that Fudge > didn't know about the TT, or if he did, he only knew that one had been > given out. Since he is, nonetheless, a petty politician who has reached > his optimun level of incompetence, he probably doesn't know or care who > received the TT, and hopes that, like all his other problems, it will > resolve on it's own. > > Resuming: the information of the TT never got as high as Fudge. It is > lost in the buroracy of the MoM. > Besides, who would think to look for a TT in the hands of a thirteen- year-old? From Fudge's perspective, it's probably something that's Just Not Done. It's easy to go over someone's head when they've buried it in the sand. ~Christi From ntg85 at prodigy.net Thu Jun 13 16:48:08 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:48:08 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39812 "Christopher Nuttall" wrote: > I suspect that Voldemort and Dumbledore met during or just >before his first rise to power. Then, Dumbledore would have learnt >Riddle/Voldemort's history and refused him. Possible, but why wouldn't Dumbledore already know about Riddle's past? IMO, Professor Dumbledore seems pretty world-wise. I think he would know at leas some background on each student, but especially an outstanding student like Tom. Also, if Dumbledore taught Tom, and kept "annoyingly close watch" on him, why wouldn't Dumbledore recognize him later, after he began his reign of terror? > On the other question, we know that Dumbledore had a fair suspicion >where Voldemort's resurrection was going to happen, and we know that >the Killing Curse is unstoppable. In that case, why not stake >out the Riddle house with >Aurors and hit Voldemort just after he is resurrected. Avada Kedavra is an Unforgivable Curse. It seemed to me, from GoF, that anyone who uses it, for good or bad, is punished in some way. But then again, how else to get rid of Voldemort? The curse bouncing off of Harry was an incredible coincidence. You can't expect something like that to happen twice. > If magic near the >house will tip Voldemort of, why not use a Muggle atomic bomb to >finish the job? I'm thinking they didn't wan to kill everyone for miles around. Also, couldn't Voldemort have some sort of shield round his place? That would explain Dumbledore's inaction as well. (But I do just like the idea of a tactical ballistic strike coming down on Ol' Voldie. Helooks up into the sky and says, "aw, man!" just before being lit up. ^_^) The Random Monkey From ntg85 at prodigy.net Thu Jun 13 17:22:35 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:22:35 -0000 Subject: Time-Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39813 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > Eloise wrote: > > > >But again, I have > > > the > > > problem that the Dumbledore who sent them on their mission belongs to > >the > > > world where Buckbeak *was* executed. If they are creating a simultaneous > > > history, then that implies that there is a history where Sirius *is* > > > kissed..... Doesn't it? ....genuine question, because I start to get > > > confused > > > when I think about this too long. ;-) > > And Naama responded: > > > > No, it doesn't create simultaneous histories. What happened in PoA is > > > that Buckbeak had never been executed. Ever. > Amy Z: > Something *has* been changed, though we can't > say *when* it was changed because time as we usually speak of it has lost > its meaning. Otherwise, in that first scene in the hospital wing, > Dumbledore would just smile at Harry and Hermione and say "Don't worry, you > already fixed everything." No, really, there is a cause-and-effect for this. The problem is, the cause comes *after* the effect, because of the time travel. Think about it: Harry is in the forest, and sees himself do Expectum Patronus. Then he goes on, blah, blah, blah, then goes back in time. He *had* to go back in time, or else, he would have created a time paradox. If he didn't go back, he wouldn't have been able to save hmself, so he wouldn't have been able to choose whether or not to go back in time. It's weird, even for a time paradox. Think of it like a rollercoaster with a loop-the-loop. You go forward to a point, then curve up and go back. Then you go forward again, but *next to* the last bit of track. From one direction, it appears that you are back at the same spot, but really, you're not. That's what Harry did. Amy Z: > Harry and Hermione are doing exactly what they are not supposed to do, and > so they need to make the change as narrow as possible. No fooling around > with Pettigrew or the Invisibility Cloak or anything else Harry's tempted to > do, because this is already a risky business. If Harry had taken the Cloak, it would have created another paradox: Snape might not have found them, so they wouldn't need to go back in time, so noone would pick up the Cloak, so Snape would find them, so they would go back in time... In other words, they can only do things that happened. They are "fulfilling prophecy", so to speak. They have to cause the effects that have already happened. Amy Z: > Two, we are mistaken when we think of "change events" as referring only to > BIG things: saving someone who would have died, removing an Invisibility > Cloak that someone would have used. Really, *any* overlapping of time > changes the way things were. The second Harry and Hermione flip over the > Time Turner, they have changed things. Different atoms are now swirling > around the Entrance Hall. No, the same atoms that swirled in the Entrance hall the first time are still there. Possibly different people are breathing them, but that depends on your theory of time travel. There are two theories, that I know of. One is that if you see the future, you can change it. Therefore, if you go to the past, knowing the future, you can change the past, and, therefore, the future. This is a tough one, because it brings in all that "go back and kill your grandfather" type stuff. The other is that if you know the future, you cannot change it. Therefore, if you go back in time, knowing the future, you can't do anything. in fact, anything you do to try to change the future (or the past) will probably result in what you didn't want happening. For example: You see in the future that, let's say, the baby starts crying. You run upstairs and try to prevent whatever will make her cry, but on your way into her room, you fall and hit the floor, making a crash. The baby starts crying because you fell. This seems to be the theory Jo uses. The Random Monkey, who thinks about these things waaay too much. From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Jun 13 18:47:40 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 18:47:40 -0000 Subject: Time turner whodunnit/MAGIC DISHWASHER In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39814 darrin_burnett" wrote: > Yes, but why wouldn't Snape know? I would think ALL the faculty > members would have to be appraised of Hermione's schedule and the > method she was using to take seven classes in a five-period week. IMO he does know. If you have been following the MAGIC DISHWASHER theory, you'll notice one of it's main points is that Dumbledore has Snape well informed of everything that's going on. Only that, appart from being very nasty and a great potion teacher/master, he's also a good actor, and he doesn't want Fudge to know what's really going on (not that he needs much help, but you never know). > And I would think Hermione taking two classes at once would be > noticeable to more than just Harry and Ron. All the students in both > classes would wonder about it too. > > "darrin burnett" She's ignored by most of the students. I don't find that hard to believe that no-one notices her multiple classes except those really close to her (but Harry and Ron are not particularly focused) and faculty teachers, who may or may not have been told at the beggining of the year (although I'd say they have all been informed, since it's a potentially catastrophic object). > On the other question, we know that Dumbledore had a fair suspicion > where Voldemort's resurrection was going to happen, and we know that > the Killing Curse is unstoppable. Harry was the only person to have > survived it. In that case, why not stake out the Riddle house with > Aurors and hit Voldemort just after he is resurrected. Or wait for > the death eaters to arrive and make a clean sweep. If magic near the > house will tip Voldemort of, why not use a Muggle atomic bomb to > finish the job? We don't know yet what Dumbledore's plans for finishing off Voldemort are (see Pip's MAGIC DISHWASHER original theory in post #39662 to read why we [Pip and me, and anyone who whishes to join us] know he's got such plan), we just know that he has them. I don't think that AK would work, though, since he received the full blast of an AK 10 years back and that didn't kill him, and it's altoghether possible that the protection Harry has against AK has been passed, toghether with his blood, to Voldemort. The plan has been thought over for a while in Dumbledore's old gang, and I doubt that killing Voldemort is going to be as easy as throwing an AK. What about the rest of the DEs, I hear you ask. Well, I don't think it would be that easy to sneak into the graveyard, and if Voldemort had noticed anything strange in the surrondings, he wouldn't have called his DE. And there could be protections against that sort of plan, too, that we don't know about. > Avada Kedavra is an Unforgivable Curse. It seemed to me, from GoF, > that anyone who uses it, for good or bad, is punished in some way. To be exact: "the use of [the unforgivable curses: AK, Imperius or Cruciatus] against a human being is punished with life sentence in Azkaban" (GoF, ch. 14, Sp. Ed., liberal tranlation). > But then again, how else to get rid of Voldemort? The curse bouncing > off of Harry was an incredible coincidence. You can't expect > something like that to happen twice. See above: I don't think AK would work, for the same reason you've said: it didn't work last time, why would it work this time? Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From editor at texas.net Thu Jun 13 19:00:58 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:00:58 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time turner whodunnit/MAGIC DISHWASHER References: Message-ID: <004001c2130c$a7eda5a0$b07e63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39815 Grey Wolf said If you have been following the MAGIC DISHWASHER > theory, you'll notice one of it's main points is that Dumbledore has > Snape well informed of everything that's going on. Only that, appart > from being very nasty and a great potion teacher/master, he's also a > good actor, and he doesn't want Fudge to know what's really going on > (not that he needs much help, but you never know). Grey Wolf, humor me, for I have little time and am genuinely curious. I think Snape in the Shrieking Shack and at the end of PoA was 100% on the surface real, no acting involved. Are you really saying that he was putting on an act? That he already knew Sirius was innocent and still behaved the way he did? There are six bizillion posts on this thread by this time and I simply can't weed through them. I thought a direct question might also help any new people who have tuned in in the middle, as I did. --Amanda From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Jun 13 19:30:16 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 19:30:16 -0000 Subject: Apparate or Die Trying In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39816 I suggested that the reason that we never see wizards apparate in or out of houses might be because all wizarding residences are protected against that mode of entry, as Hogwarts is. David pointed out that actually, we *do* see Arthur Weasley apparate into his own home, and Meg thoughtfully provided the canon: > But we do see Arthur Weasley apparating into his house. "Before any > of them could say anything else, there was a faint popping noise, > and Mr. Weasley appeared out of thin air at George's shoulder." >(GoF 52) Quite right, Meg and David! Sorry. I had completely forgotten about that. Meg: > So it must therefore be possible to apparate into a house since > everyone was in the kitchen at the time. I think even Harry would > have noticed had Arthur walked into the room from outside rather > than just apparating in. Agreed. It does seem quite a security risk, though, doesn't it? How does one protect oneself against burglars? I wonder if, as Eloise suggested, household protections can be keyed to exempt certain individuals. Ali wrote: > The message that these *ordinary* wizards can apparate together > with the fact that wizards take their apparation test at the age of > 17, suggests to me that Apparation is a readily acquirable skill > (similar to our driving test which British muggles can also take > from the age of 17). That was certainly the way I interpreted it. Honestly, it was not until I joined this list that it even occurred to me that apparating might be an unusually difficult skill. I had assumed it to be something that nearly every adult wizard knew how to do, much like driving here in the US (we also get our driver's licenses at around the age of 17, BTW, Ali, although this can vary from state to state). Mentions of people failing their apparation tests the first time around and so forth I had also interpreted as a direct analogue to driving. Many people have difficulty passing their driver's test the first time out. And as for Percy showing off by apparating up and down the stairs, I had always imagined that this was "showing off" not because it is really all that difficult a skill for normal adult wizards who have been doing it for years, but because Percy is only *seventeen.* It's a new skill for him, and it's one that his younger siblings aren't allowed to do yet, so he's having a bit of fun with it, and indulging in a bit of gloating as well. I went out driving my parents' car just for the fun of it when *I* first got my driver's license. I even volunteered to do the shopping, just so that I could get to drive the car. And when I saw friends who hadn't passed their tests yet, I waved at them and gloated merrily. In fact, if I could have driven the car up and down the stairs, then I probably would have done that, too. ;-) Of course, these days I take the bus to work, and whenever somebody asks me for a ride to the airport, I roll my eyes and sigh and wonder out loud in a long-suffering sort of way why on earth *I* should always have to be the one to drive everybody to the airport. Ah, the joys of getting old and cranky. Still Ali: > Perhaps JKR invented "splinching" and other apparation mistakes > (Charlie landing 5 miles from his destination during his test) to > explain why apparation is not the only mode of transport - so that > broomsticks, the Knight Bus and Ministry cars could be convincingly > used. Well, driving is really quite dangerous as well, isn't it? Primarily, I think that splinching is just furthering along the driving analogue: it's a car accident. I also agree with you, though, that it also serves quite handily to explain the existence of other modes of transport, as well as to explain why apparating is reserved for licenced adults. I also suspect that it may be there to provide JKR with an out to explain away just the sort of objections that have come up in the course of this discussion: why wizards in combat situations don't simply disapparate out of trouble, for example, or why we won't be seeing too many brutally efficient assassinations conducted by rapidly apparating and disapparating hit wizards in future canon. I don't really think that JKR wants such events happening too often, because while once it could be so shocking as to be extremely emotionally effective, too much of it would quickly become under- dramatic. The perils of splinching give JKR a very handy excuse for not allowing her fictive reality to become overrun with the kind of plot resolutions which, while they may indeed be logical, pragmatic, efficient and utterly in-character, would also offer her a very limited scope for the kind of dramatic confrontation that she as a writer prefers. -- Elkins From evepandora at hotmail.com Thu Jun 13 06:42:26 2002 From: evepandora at hotmail.com (evepandora84) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 06:42:26 -0000 Subject: The Map Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39817 I was wondering why Lupin was unable to see that there were two Harrys and two Hermiones on the Marauders Map that night Black escaped? I mean weren't both of them near Hogwarts at the same time? "evepandora84" From erectionpants at yahoo.com Thu Jun 13 18:24:31 2002 From: erectionpants at yahoo.com (catja3000) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 18:24:31 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39818 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Christopher Nuttall" wrote: > When Dumbledore defeated Grindelwald in 1945, did he get the thanks >of the magical community? Sure, he's regarded as the greatest wizard >of modern times, but what rewards has he got? The headteachership >yes, but anything else?< Catja: What, being considered the greatest wizard of modern times isn't enough? I get the impression that the Headmastership of Hogwarts is a very great honor, and it seems to be exactly what Dumbledore wanted -- it's obvious that he loves his job. > We know that Dumbledore was offered the post of Minister of Magic, >but he turned it down. Did Voldemort know that? If he thought >Dumbledore might be bitter about his 'rejection', might Dumbledore >join him? I suspect that Voldemort and Dumbledore met during or >just before his first rise to power. Then, Dumbledore would have >learnt Riddle/Voldemort's history and refused him.< Catja: What, exactly are you asking here? Dumbledore *turned down* the post of MoM; he wasn't "rejected." Can you really see Dumbledore as an uber-bureaucrat? At Hogwarts he has quite a bit of freedom, more than he would have in the Ministry. He's an academic, not a politician. He has quite a bit of political finesse (the headmastership is like being president of a university), but he's not a Fudge or Crouch Sr.-style wheeler and dealer. JKR continually lampoons those who buy into the corporate mentality (Percy, anyone?), and sets them against people, like Arthur Weasely, who are committed to performing useful service for the WW rather than advancing their careers. Dumbledore and Arthur are very much birds of a feather. > On the other question, we know that Dumbledore had a fair suspicion >where Voldemort's resurrection was going to happen, and we know that >the Killing Curse is unstoppable. Harry was the only person to have >survived it. In that case, why not stake out the Riddle house with >Aurors and hit Voldemort just after he is resurrected. Or wait for >the death eaters to arrive and make a clean sweep. If magic near >the house will tip Voldemort of, why not use a Muggle atomic bomb to >finish the job?< Catja: That's what Crouch Sr. would do, and he probably suggested something very like (without the Muggle bomb, of course). And that sort of military tribunal justice is explicitly condemned in Book 4 by Sirius, who suffered for it -- use of the Unforgivable Curses, suspects imprisoned without trial, etc. Dumbledore hardly seems the type to shoot first, ask questions later, and he'd never condone those sorts of actions. He believes in second chances, remember? Catja From elfundeb at aol.com Thu Jun 13 19:54:22 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:54:22 EDT Subject: Snape-Quirrelmort Conundrum/Time-Turner Message-ID: <98.274af32c.2a3a526e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39819 I asked, regarding whether Voldemort could still believe Snape to be loyal: > I can't figure > >this part out. Or why Voldemort would still believe Snape is loyal to him > >after all the work Snape did in PS/SS to thwart Quirrell with Voldemort > >hiding in his turban. > > Eloise: > > That old Snape/ Quidemort conundrum again, eh? > The information we have is very ambiguous, IMO. > > I'm starting from the premise that Snape has managed to keep up at the very > least some doubt in Voldemort's mind as to where his loyalties lie (my > actual > position is that Voldemort believed he was a double agent in *his* service). > > If Snape knew/suspected Quirrell was in Voldemort's service, as apparently > he > did, right from the beginning, he *must* have been very circumspect in what > he let slip. In fact, whilst attempting to thwart Quirrell, I believe it > was > imperative that he didn't appear to be truly on Dumbledore's side. > > Quirrell never actually *says*anything about Snape in this context other > than > how useful he was to distract attention from himself. The overheard > conversation in the Forbidden Forest is terribly ambiguous and could (as > JKR > obviously wants us to do, initially) be interpreted as Snape trying to make > sure that Quirrell is on-board as a Voldemort supporter. Perhaps this is > indeed the game that he is playing, making out that he wants the Stone for > Voldemort and that he suspects Quirrell is playing Voldemort false, either > wanting the Stone for himself, or lacking the courage to go through with > his > Yes, the conversation in the forest is terribly ambiguous to us, but not, apparently, to Quirrell. Quirrell himself indicates to Harry when Harry confronts him at the Mirror that he was well aware that Snape was not trying to bolster Quirrell's loyalty to Voldemort. He discusses Snape's countercurse at the Quidditch match, "trying to save you." And regarding the conversation in the Forbidden Forest, Quirrell tells Harry, "He was on to me by that time, trying to find out how far I'd got. He suspected me all along. Tried to frighten me -- as though he could, when I had Lord Voldemort on my side." That seems to me to be an unambiguous statement, which of course Voldemort heard behind the turban. If Quirrell understood Snape's real meaning, then Voldemort certainly did, too. So while Voldemort may have believed that Snape was still acting as a double agent loyal to him at the beginning of PS/SS (and I do like the double agent theory), Quirrell's language, IMO, clearly indicates that he understood Snape to be working against Quirrell and that Quirrell knew it. I also thought about the possibility (quite likely, IMO) that Snape did not know that Voldemort was inside Quirrell's turban, and was trying to prevent Quirrell from getting the Stone for himself. But I don't think that using that premise I can reach the conclusion that Voldemort still thought Snape was loyal. Snape specifically asked Quirrell to meet him in the Forbidden Forest, far from prying ears. Since Snape was interfering with Voldemort's plans for Quirrell to kill Harry, this would have been a perfect time for Voldemort to reveal himself and demand Snape's loyalty. I can't think of any reason why he does not, if he doesn't suspect Snape. This suggests to me that Voldemort already had grave doubts about Snape's continued loyalty. I also think that Snape is well aware of this fact. And, yes, I've had a lot of trouble with the idea that at the end of GoF Snape is sent out to reestablish his double agent role, because I think that would be suicide. He may be recruiting another mole in the Voldemort organization, but he can't be contemplating taking on that role for himself. But then again, I'm as suspicious as Moody. Amy Z on the Time Turner: > I know it goes round in circles, but the fact is that life with a TT is not > the same as life without one. Something *has* been changed, though we > can't > say *when* it was changed because time as we usually speak of it has lost > its meaning. Otherwise, in that first scene in the hospital wing, > Dumbledore would just smile at Harry and Hermione and say "Don't worry, you > Dumbledore has figured out by the time he speaks to Harry and Hermione in the Hospital Wing what has happened. But he either can't or is reluctant to tell them to use the Time-Turner. Amy (quoting me): >> I think a lot of the confusion about the Time-Turner arises because of > >Hermione's reference to changing time. It's hard to decipher exactly what > >she means, but it could simply refer to the fact that every time Hermione > >uses the Time-Turner, she changes what time it is for herself. However, > >there's nothing about the Time-Turner's actual use that suggests it can be > >used to change events that have already occurred. > > I think there is. One, there is the warning--in saving Buckbeak and > Sirius, > Harry and Hermione are doing exactly what they are not supposed to do, and > so they need to make the change as narrow as possible. No fooling around > with Pettigrew or the Invisibility Cloak or anything else Harry's tempted > to > do, because this is already a risky business. > > Two, we are mistaken when we think of "change events" as referring only to > BIG things: saving someone who would have died, removing an Invisibility > Cloak that someone would have used. Really, *any* overlapping of time > changes the way things were. The second Harry and Hermione flip over the > Time Turner, they have changed things. Different atoms are now swirling > around the Entrance Hall. To me the notion that the Time-Turner does not actually change past events is so instinctive that the first time I read PoA I immediately checked back to make sure JKR hadn't screwed it up by showing Buckbeak being executed. But I think that one of the problems with making sense of the Time-Turner concept is that Harry himself, who really doesn't understand the underlying concept of the Time-Turner, expresses their mission as "There must be something that happened around now he wants us to change." But what he's actually doing is preventing an event -- Buckbeak's execution -- that he thinks has happened but did not because HH2 were actually there the first time Harry and Hermione experienced 9-midnight helping him escape. Maybe the problem is that the phrase "Time-Turner" is a misnomer. Maybe a better way of describing the Time-Turner is that it creates a double of the person using the Time-Turner for that period of time. At 9 p.m. Harry and Hermione each split into two persons somewhere around the Entrance Hall, and at midnight they merge back into one in the Hospital Wing. There aren't different atoms in the Entrance Hall. Nine o'clock only happens once, and there are two sets of Hermione atoms and two sets of Harry atoms in the Entrance Hall. Indeed, Harry asks Hermione if "we're here in his cupboard and we're out there too?" Maybe it would help to go back to the language Eloise quoted: 'We're breaking one of the most important wizarding laws! Nobody's supposed to change time, nobody! You heard Dumbledore, if we're seen - ' (POA, UK paperback, 291-2) Hermione refers here to changing time, not to changing events. The problem with using a Time-Turner, as Harry and Hermione do, is that you *can't* use it to change events. That's why Harry can't pick up the Invisibility Cloak -- because Harry1 has lived through the events and Harry2 knows it wasn't picked up. He *can* cast a Patronus charm, however, because Harry has lived through the events as Harry1 and saw that occur. The Time-Turner is dangerous, and its use is generally prohibited, because it it too tempting -- as it is to Harry -- to try to use it to change events, the consequences of which are not revealed to us. The only legitimate purpose of a Time-Turner is to be able to do two things at once, which is why Hermione was made to promise that she would never use it for anything but her studies. What Harry and Hermione were doing was in fact really dangerous, using it to influence events that (to their minds only) had already happened as HH2 were experiencing them. Debbie, who could really use a Time-Turner sometimes [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Jun 13 20:08:35 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 20:08:35 -0000 Subject: MAGIC DISHWASHER In-Reply-To: <004001c2130c$a7eda5a0$b07e63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39820 Amanda Geist wrote: > Grey Wolf, humor me, for I have little time and am genuinely curious. > I think Snape in the Shrieking Shack and at the end of PoA was 100% > on the surface real, no acting involved. Are you really saying that > he was putting on an act? That he already knew Sirius was innocent > and still behaved the way he did? Of course I'll humour you, Amanda! Maybe you'll become convinced of MAGIC DISHWASHER and join the ranks of us who have understood what HP is really all about ;-) I'm not the one who actually created the theory (which can be found, FULLY, in post #39662, the rest are just attacks and parries around it), so you'll have to excuse me if I get it wrong. Pip's got the last word on it, whatever I say. If I understood it correctly, Snape believed in the shack that Sirius and Lupin were as guilty as Wormtail, but it's beside the point. His act is focusing on allowing Peter scape (from his PoV, the least dangerous of the three, and the most probable to have a life debt to Harry), which is in turn based on acting as if he didn't know of his existance (or else, he would have to tell the MoM about him, and Dumbledore's A plan would go down the drain). It is very unlike Snape, if you think for a while, to let his passions out, and there is something very strange about the whole shack situation. > There are six bizillion posts on this thread by this time and I > simply can't weed through them. I thought a direct question might > also help any new people who have tuned in in the middle, as I did. > > --Amanda It does seem to have gone out of hand, does it? I've broken my own posting record (over a dozen posts in under twelve hours), and I'm not the only one defending the theory: Pip, the creator, was also there, and so were a few others (I myself joined late, but made up for it by throwing myself right into the fray). I don't think I can really give a quick class right now on the theory, but I do recommend everyone who wishes to follow post number 39662, which is the originator. If you'd wanted to ask something, please do so. If you've got doubts about the theory, or wish to say something against it, though, I'd ask you to check the thread, since Marina and a few others have been very thorough in ther critics and they probably include yours. Then again, I wouldn't mind going through it again, since it heklps to fine-tune the theory. I was thinking on doing a re-cap post on the entire MAGIC DISHWASHER theory, explaining the broad outline, the arguments against it, the patches we've worked out and the origin of it's name, but I'm not sure if that should be Pip's work (it's her theory, after all), or if she would allow me to do so (which I think she would, because it's more a chore than a "thinking" post), and if I should wait to see if she finally was going to put together a post expanding the theory into the graveyard scene of GoF. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who really likes this theory and wonders what would Steve from the Lexicon think about it, and if he would put it up in the HP4GU FAQs of the Lexicon. From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu Jun 13 20:25:21 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 20:25:21 -0000 Subject: Snape-Quirrelmort Conundrum/Time-Turner In-Reply-To: <98.274af32c.2a3a526e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39821 Debbie wrote: > Maybe the problem is that the phrase "Time-Turner" is a misnomer. > Maybe a better way of describing the Time-Turner is that it creates a > double of the person using the Time-Turner for that period of time. > At 9 p.m. Harry and Hermione each split into two persons somewhere > around the Entrance Hall, and at midnight they merge back into one in > the Hospital Wing. There aren't different atoms in the Entrance > Hall. Nine o'clock only happens once, and there are two sets of > Hermione atoms and two sets of Harry atoms in the Entrance Hall. > Indeed, Harry asks Hermione if "we're here in his cupboard and we're > out there too?" > > Debbie, who could really use a Time-Turner sometimes So we should call it from now on the time-splitter? I like it, as a method to describe it's effects. The only thing it doesn't contemplate is the fact that half of the people envolved are future versions of the other half involved, and thus know what's going to happen during the next few hours to the past half of the people. It has got one definite advantage, though: whatever you think of the TT, this description of the splitting people is the way *time* sees the entire bussiness with the TT: from Time's point of view, at 9 o'clock there are two Hermiones and two Harrys, each pair doing completely independent actions, and which after 12 o'clock they merge back into a single pair. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who hopes he can remember this PoV for the next TT crisis. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jun 13 20:35:22 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 20:35:22 -0000 Subject: Would JKR make Lupin evil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39822 If JKR only put Lupin in the story to be the poster boy for persons with disabilities, and the only reaction she wants to evoke is, "Awww, poor woobie!" then I concede. This particular hedgehog won't fly. Evil!Lupin is the product of nobody's imagination but my own. But if JKR aspires to more than propaganda, if she wishes to invoke not only pity but terror, then Harry may discover that Lupin is but the hollowed out shell of the man he could have been, and still appears to be. That he joined the dark forces not because he thought it was cool to be dark, but because the terrible burden of his condition was too much for him to bear alone. That it had, as he says, "nothing to do with weakness" but everything to do with indifference and bigotry and hate. Then we'll get beyond the poster child version of caring about people with serious illness--because the truth is that caregiving and advocacy can be humbling, thankless tasks You'd better be prepared for unpleasant behavior from the people you're trying to help, if you're going to stick with it. Most people don't suffer as nobly as Lupin does-- or seems to. **** This thread started with Cindy's question, "Who will betray Dumbledore?" If the answer is "nobody" then once again, we don't need Evil!lupin. But if somebody *is* going to betray Dumbledore, then we may, as Cindy did, follow a standard technique for constructing a mystery story. First choose a crime: betrayal. Then a victim: Albus Dumbledore. Give victim a resource base: something so valuable we can easily imagine he might be killed for it. In this case, it's Hogwarts and the guardianship of the wizarding world. Make a list of everyone associated with the victim, and decide which of them is to commit the crime. Cindy accused Snape, which was only to be expected , but then she did something very curious. She put Lupin and Sirius on the same line of her list. Lupin and Sirius are indeed similar. Same background, same famished, neglected appearance, same circle of friends. Even their manner of speaking is far more alike than say, Harry's and Ron's. I found I had to keep flipping back to the Shrieking Shack chapters when preparing these posts, because my memory was unreliable as to which of them said what. Novelists usually try like the dickens to make their characters different from one another, except, that is, when they're trying to confuse the issue--to hide a betrayer from his comrades, for example. Aragorn and Boromir. Gandalf and Saruman. Han Solo and Lando Calrissian. I get very suspicious when I see two characters who are almost alike, and are not, or are no longer, pals. Especially if they are nice young men and the author is paying conspicuous homage to Agatha Christie, to the point of giving her sleuth the initials H.P. There are a lot of parallels between Agatha's life and JKR's you know. Young!Quirrell, Young!Riddle, Young!Peter,Young!Barty, all seemingly innocent men. Who says JKR doesn't repeat herself? And of all James' old classmates, only Lupin is said to look youthful, though he should be the same age as Sirius and Snape. Still, it all started as a joke. I didn't expect to convince anyone, let alone myself. But a funny thing happened when I went looking for clues to Lupin's perfidy. It seemed that JKR had been there first. She put in the cauldron full of extra potion. She made it easy to get into Snape's office. She put in Lupin's reluctance to touch Harry. She gave us the empty grindylow tank versus the to-do over finding a safe home for Norbert. She shows us Lupin's farewell handshake with Dumbledore reprising Harry's greeting handshake with Quirrell. She tells us good guys feel safe when they're with Dumbledore but Lupin can't wait to get away. She gave us all of Lupin's ambiguous statements in the Shack, where Crookshanks, who really doesn't have much to do once he's opened the willow, is there to force Lupin into tortured verity. She explained why Voldemort's supporters would go after Pettigrew. She even had Pettigrew fake his death twice, so that Lupin could truthfully say: "Everyone thought Sirius had killed Peter. I believed it myself..until I saw the Map tonight," even if he had initially gone to Hogwarts because he'd learned that Peter was alive. I missed this on the first go round, and that's why I originally theorized that Lupin must have been after Sirius. You see, I really am not that ingenious. But JKR is. Debbie offers a reason why it couldn't have been so: >>>But as a werewolf, Lupin can't pick and choose his victims. He may keep his mind when he transforms, but he has no control. That's why the Marauders had to become Animagi in order to accompany him on his transformations, because werewolves can't resist human flesh. So he wouldn't have been able to save Harry. So he can't have had a *plan* that included keeping Harry alive.<<< The potion, "a very recent invention" is unlike the effect of the animagi, which only "seemed to make my mind less wolfish". Lupin explains what the potion does, "I keep my mind when I transform. I am able to curl up in my office, a *harmless* (emphasis mine) wolf, and wait for the moon to wane again." Ah, but humans are not harmless creatures, are they? Lupin with his human mind and his werewolf body would be capable of murder. Nobody yet has come up with a reason why this couldn't have happened, if Lupin secretly took his potion after all. As for hiding evidence of the crime, Lupin doesn't need to. Nobody is going to go after him in the Forbidden Forest on a night of the full moon. He can control Dementors, and he has the Invisibility Cloak. If all Lupin's actions are aimed at stalling for time, then he has very good reason not to remind everyone what time of the month it is. We don't have to award Lupin the TMR award for best performance by an amnesiac --"I'm a werewolf! I forgot!" I will admit though, that I am amused by the contradictory premise that absent-minded Professor Lupin was so delighted with himself for remembering to pick up the cloak that he entirely forgot about his imminent transformation. That would be funny, if the consequences hadn't been so dire. I know may other alternate explanations can be contrived for most of this. It wouldn't be much of a mystery if they couldn't. But you see, the clues are there. I didn't have to invent any of them. Catja wrote; >>One of the key tropes of the fairy tale is that of opposing duality, the conflict between a delineated protagonist/antagonist who, importantly, mirror each other.<<< Oh, absolutely. But Crouch!Moody isn't Lupin's mirror/antagonist. How can he be? Lupin's alive, the story's not over, and Crouch!Moody is out of the running. 404. Soul-sucked. Void where prohibited. Erase *.* No, what Crouch's masquerade sets up is that the masquerade is possible. A really clever dark wizard can fool Dumbledore, win Harry's confidence, even teach a bit of real and useful Dark Arts defense. Lupin's mirror antagonist is Snape. Who else? Snape who is perhaps part-vampire, Snape whose disposition is the exact opposite of Lupin's, Snape who loathes Lupin from the bottom of his heart. And if Snape, at the end of the story, proves to have been faithful to Harry all along, where does that leave Lupin? I can't help but find it artistically pleasing, if of the four survivors of the Marauder days, two are on Harry's side and two are on Voldemort's. Snape and Sirius, versus Lupin and Pettigrew. Let the battle begin! Pippin, tying the green willow around Catja's folklorist hat "Here's a half a pound of reasons, and a quarter pound of sense A small sprig of time and as much of prudence You mix them all together and you will plainly see He's a false deluding young man, let him go farewell he" ---All Around My Hat (traditional) From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Jun 13 20:54:49 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:54:49 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-Turner (WAS Spying game/ Vodemort's resurrectio... Message-ID: <102.168f8c9d.2a3a6099@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39823 Debbie: > I think a lot of the confusion about the Time-Turner arises because of > Hermione's reference to changing time. It's hard to decipher exactly what > she means, but it could simply refer to the fact that every time Hermione > uses the Time-Turner, she changes what time it is for herself. However, > there's nothing about the Time-Turner's actual use that suggests it can be > Eloise: So....Hermione attends Divination. Whilst she is there, the Arithmancy class takes place, *without* Hermione. As far as the other students are concerned she isn't there - or is she? Not until/unless she does actually use the TT. So if she uses it, is she changing something or not? And if Harry was sent from Divination to the Arithmancy classroom, would he see her there or not? I suppose he would, as long as she *did* use the TT. But it's perhaps changing the possibilities of history. At the end of that Potions lesson, there are two possible courses for the last hour to have taken, one in which Hermione was witnessed in two other classes and one in which she attends only one. > The bigger Time-Turner issue, IMO, is the one raised by Hermione's comment > that the greatest problem with the Time-Turner is people killing their > former > or future selves. What happens then? Do both Time-Turner users die? > > Eloise: That's a real conundrum. I mean, if you kill your past self, then you can't get to the point in history where you turned back time in order to be the past self you've just killed. Or something like that. > > > Incidentally, the whole Time-Turner incident does show that Dumbldore is > > already, in POA, prepared to act (or encourage acts) outside the law if > he > > sees fit. > > Absolutely. But Dumbledore very purposefully does not tell Harry and > Hermione what to do. He merely reminds them of the tools at their disposal > ("What we need . . . is more time") and only after Hermione makes clear > ("OH!") that she understands what she needs to do, Dumbledore gives them > specific information (Sirius' location, the possibility of saving two > innocent lives, a reminder of the prohibition on being seen and how much > time > they need) to carry out what he knows they will try to do. This is his > modus > operandi -- to lay out information that allows others to make their own > choices and trusting them. I just can't see him devising the kind of > Eloise: Yeesss..... but that is rather casuistical, isn't it? Yes, it was Harry and Hermione's choice (or was it, in that apparently, Harry already having saved their lives, there was no other course open. They'd already done it, in other words) (I'm going to break off for a minute. That's where my problem is, right there. Harry has already seen himself. Therefore he's already turned back time. Therefore, Sirius is already free (or nearly, as I'm not LOON enough to work out the precise timing). We're trapped in this circle. Perhaps I'm just proving Debbie and Naama's point.) To go back......Dumbledore may not have *said* use the TT, free Buckbeak and rescue Sirius, but it was his intention and they knew that and so to all intents and purposes, morally speaking, he as good as told them to. Back to the mechanics > Amy Z: > > Harry and Hermione are doing exactly what they are not supposed to > do, and > > so they need to make the change as narrow as possible. No fooling > around > > with Pettigrew or the Invisibility Cloak or anything else Harry's > tempted to > > do, because this is already a risky business. > The Random Monkey: > f Harry had taken the Cloak, it would have created another paradox: > Snape might not have found them, so they wouldn't need to go back in > time, so noone would pick up the Cloak, so Snape would find them, so > they would go back in time... > > In other words, they can only do things that happened. They are > "fulfilling prophecy", so to speak. They have to cause the effects > Eloise: You mean they *cannot* do anything they haven't already done? Except the thing that they have to...err...... change. (Except that apparently it isn't really a change, because...oh dear, here we go again. ;-) ) So Harry wasn't free to choose to pick up the invisibility cloak? It makes sense, although I baulk at it. But I still come back to the thought that it is very strange that one of the most important wizarding laws is that you mustn't change time if, in fact, it is impossible to do so. Debbie: >Maybe the problem is that the phrase "Time-Turner" is a misnomer. Maybe a >better way of describing the Time-Turner is that it creates a double of the >person using the Time-Turner for that period of time. At 9 p.m. Harry and >Hermione each split into two persons somewhere around the Entrance Hall, and >at midnight they merge back into one in the Hospital Wing. There aren't >different atoms in the Entrance Hall. Nine o'clock only happens once, and >there are two sets of Hermione atoms and two sets of Harry atoms in the >Entrance Hall. Indeed, Harry asks Hermione if "we're here in his cupboard >and we're out there too?" Eloise: This makes some sense and partially, but not completely, answers the question of how they end up in the Entrance Hall, which I have never really understood. (What's new?) Debbie: >Maybe it would help to go back to the language Eloise quoted: > >'We're breaking one of the most important wizarding laws! Nobody's supposed >to change time, nobody! You heard Dumbledore, if we're seen - ' (POA, UK >paperback, 291-2) > >Hermione refers here to changing time, not to changing events. Eloise: But I wonder what 'changing time' means? Is it saying the TT itself is illegal? Hermione seems clearly to be indicating that whatever they are aboutto do *is* illegal, yet the TT apparently has legitimate use, to which McGonnagall confirmed it was going to be confined. Debbie: > The problem with using a Time-Turner, as Harry and Hermione do, is that you >*can't* use it to change events. That's why Harry can't pick up the Invisibility Cloak >-- because Harry1 has lived through the events and Harry2 knows it wasn't >picked up. Eloise: But Harry2 doesn't know it *can't* be, because that's what he wants to do. Debbie: He *can* cast a Patronus charm, however, because Harry has lived >through the events as Harry1 and saw that occur. The Time-Turner is >dangerous, and its use is generally prohibited, because it it too tempting -- >as it is to Harry -- to try to use it to change events, the consequences of >which are not revealed to us. The only legitimate purpose of a Time-Turner >is to be able to do two things at once, which is why Hermione was made to >promise that she would never use it for anything but her studies. Eloise: Which goes back to Sirius and Buckbeak being both dead and alive.....doesn't it......? Debbie: > What Harry and Hermione were doing was in fact really dangerous, using it to >influence events that (to their minds only) had already happened as HH2 were >experiencing them. Eloise: Why was it dangerous if there was so much inevitibility about the situation? For instance, there was no danger of not getting back to the Hospital Wing in time, as it had already happened. I'm not trying to be difficult or argumentative in all this, I'm just genuinely intrigued by the whole idea. >Debbie, who could really use a Time-Turner sometimes Eloise, who also hankered after one, until she realised that it wouldn't extend one's life and would make one age so much quicker (in 'real' time) And is also dying to ask whether the MAGIC DISHWASHER is an infringement of the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts Act ;-) And needs to go and think about Snape and Quidemort again. And get some sleep, as she had about as much as Debbie last night (if her understanding of time zones is correct) and hopes Debbie hasn't felt as rough as she has all day! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Jun 13 21:08:40 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:08:40 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Dumbledore as Animagus (was:What *Really* is the Purpose Message-ID: <104.16fd34b7.2a3a63d8@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39824 Pip: > Incidentally, how many of us have spotted that Dumbledore is an > Animagi? Any ideas on his transfigured form (a phoenix??) On what basis did you come to the conclusion that he was an Animagus, other than his general brilliance and history as a transfiguration teacher? Is there an obvious clue I've missed? It has been speculated on before, the favourite form, I think, being a bee (which is apparently what dumbledore means). However it has also been pointed out to me (when I made an animagus speculation about Harry) that JKR has said there will be no more animagi revealed. OTOH, perhaps that's a Dobby clue and he has been revealed in a way which we've (I've) missed. Eloise. who really *is* going to bed now. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Thu Jun 13 21:21:11 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:21:11 -0000 Subject: Spying game/ MAGIC DISHWASHER In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39825 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > Now, returning to LOON mode, this is something where there *is* a > right answer! > >Debbie: > > > > In the Potions class, Hermione offers to help Neville, and Snape > > cuts her off > > > coldly with the comment that he didn't ask her to show off. > > Hermione went > > > pink and shut up. > > > Pip: > > Errr... no, she doesn't. She helps Neville when he asks her by > > hissing instructions at him out of the side of her mouth. I guess > > this is an example of the way two people can read a scene in totally > > different ways - because to me the point here is that Snape > > *doesn't* push it. He doesn't take House points off Gryffindor here - > > even though he shows later in the Boggart class that he was perfectly > > > > > Since Debbie's gone to bed, I'll defend her :-) > > POA (UK PB, 96) > > "'Please, sir,' said Hermione, 'please, I could help Neville put it right - ' > 'I don't remember asking you to show off, Miss Granger,' said Snape, coldly, > and Hermione went as pink as Neville." > ..................... (Since I'm now back from work, I'll defend myself [grin] ) You misunderstand me. I am referring to immediately *after* Hermione goes pink, when Neville moans "Help me!", and the bit later in the scene where 'Hermione was muttering instructions to him [Neville]out of the corner of her mouth, so Snape wouldn't see.' p. 97 Snape refers to this in the boggart class scene, where he is sarcastic about Neville being unable to do anything difficult 'unless Miss Grainger is hissing instructions in his ear' p. 100 My point is that here is an example of Snape letting something go - he was quite clearly aware of exactly what Hermione was doing, but obviously didn't think it worth pursuing (probably because while Neville was being given heavy hints, he was at least preparing the potion himself). His behaviour in the Shack and the Hospital is quite unlike his behaviour to Hermione elsewhere and, IMO, shows that it was *important* she keep quiet. See #39662 for an analysis of when and why he shuts her up in the shack and hospital. Amy Z writes: > Uh oh. I'm making a good case for the Snape/Dumbledore tag team, > aren't I? That's the thing about MAGIC DISHWASHERs. You think you don't need one, then suddenly you find you're using it all the time [grin]. Grey Wolf writes: > If I understood it correctly, Snape believed in the shack that > Sirius and Lupin were as guilty as Wormtail, but it's beside the > point. His act is focusing on allowing Peter scape (from his PoV, > the least dangerous of the three, and the most probable to have a > life debt to Harry), which is in turn based on acting as if he > didn't know of his existance (or else, he would have to tell the > MoM about him, and Dumbledore's A plan would go down the drain). It > is very unlike Snape, if you think for a while, to let his passions > out, and there is something very strange about the whole shack > situation. Yup, that's a very good summary. I would add that Snape could also not let it be suspected that the escape was allowed because it would make Voldemort extremely suspicious to say the least. In the Shack, Snape shows himself far to competent to make 'oops, he just slipped through my fingers' very believable. It's all in incredible, can(n)oned detail in #39662. Nearly 6000 words of detail. :-) Grey Wolf writes: > I was thinking on doing a re-cap post on the entire MAGIC > DISHWASHER theory, explaining the broad outline, the arguments > against it, the patches we've worked out and the origin of it's > name, but I'm not sure if that should be Pip's work (it's her > theory, after all), or if she would allow me to do so (which I > think she would, because it's more a chore than a "thinking" post), > and if I should wait to see if she finally was going to put > together a post expanding the theory into the graveyard scene of > GoF. I would be very happy if you wanted to do a recap post.I was trying to sort out the various pro and con posts last night and got horribly confused - and I started the theory in the first place! But it's sort of spread. :-) I do intend to do the graveyard scene, but I doubt that will be out before the weekend,or possibly even next week. Besides, if that post generates as many replies as my Shrieking Shack one did... [grin] Pip(who has been watching all this with the slightly incredulous feeling of someone who rolled a small snowball down a hill and has seen it turn into a minor avalanche) Squeak From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Thu Jun 13 21:29:34 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:29:34 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore as Animagus (was:What *Really* is the Purpose In-Reply-To: <104.16fd34b7.2a3a63d8@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39826 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > Pip: > > Incidentally, how many of us have spotted that Dumbledore is an > > Animagi? Any ideas on his transfigured form (a phoenix??) > > On what basis did you come to the conclusion that he was an Animagus? However it has also been pointed out to me (when I made an animagus > speculation about Harry) that JKR has said there will be no more > animagi revealed. > > OTOH, perhaps that's a Dobby clue and he has been revealed in a way > which we've (I've) missed. > > Eloise. > who really *is* going to bed now. I'm basing it on the fact that when Hermione looked up the registered Animagi, she said that there have only been seven *this century*. (PoA p. 258 UK hardback). Dumbledore, of course, would have been registered in the previous Century. Also on the fact he was the Transfiguration teacher. > > Of course, if JKR says it's no go, it's no go. Unless there's another revealing clue I haven't spotted [grin]. Pip > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 13 21:53:13 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:53:13 -0000 Subject: Would JKR make Lupin evil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39827 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > If JKR only put Lupin in the story to be the poster boy for persons > with disabilities, and the only reaction she wants to evoke is, > "Awww, poor woobie!" then I concede. This particular hedgehog > won't fly. Evil!Lupin is the product of nobody's imagination but my > own. That's a bit of a strawman argument, if you ask me. The only possible alternative to the Evil!Lupin storyline is pathetic propaganda? Since when? We've had about three years of discussion between the release of PoA and your proposal of the Evil!Lupin theory, and during all that time I don't recall a slew of complains that Lupin is boring, pitiful, or unrealistically perfect, or that his storyline was a great big pity party. People do feel sympathy for him, but they also appreciate his Edge, point out his character flaws, and, frequently, find him Dead Sexy to boot. > But if JKR aspires to more than propaganda, if she wishes to > invoke not only pity but terror, then Harry may discover that Lupin > is but the hollowed out shell of the man he could have been, and > still appears to be. That he joined the dark forces not because > he thought it was cool to be dark, but because the terrible burden > of his condition was too much for him to bear alone. That it had, > as he says, "nothing to do with weakness" but everything to do > with indifference and bigotry and hate. There's one big problem with that scenario -- all the most interesting parts of it happen way in the past, and we never get to see them. If a potentially good and noble man is going to be pushed toward evil by bigotry and hate, I wanna see it happen *now*, not hear a speech about how it happened fifteen years ago. "Show, don't tell" is the motto. I think the situation is ripe right now for a "temptation of Remus Lupin" storyline. After seven relatively happy years at Hogwarts, he'd lived twelve years alone and in poverty, his only support system destroyed by death and betrayal. The teaching job offered a ray of hope, only to be snatched away just as he was getting used to the idea of satisfying work and regular meals. Voldemort is on the rise again; it's been hinted that he's going to be recruiting Giants, who are another hated minority -- doesn't it make sense he'd try to recruit werewolves, too? How will other werewolves, who didn't get to go to Hogwarts and hang out with Marauders, choose their sides? If Lupin tries to work for Dumbledore, he may find himself forced to oppose, betray or kill others of his kind. It doesn't even matter if he ultimately gives in to the temptation or not -- it's the process that's important and dramatic, and JKR could get infinite mileage out of it. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Jun 13 23:30:01 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 23:30:01 -0000 Subject: Talented DEs (WAS: Talentless DEs) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39828 Pippin asked (rhetorically, right before pointing the finger at Lupin): > How did Crouch!Moody, who's never taught a lesson in his life, > get so good at teaching DADA? Aldrea responded: > I know someone else already answered this and said that > Crouch!Moody would be good at DADA because of his experiences in > the Dark Arts. Crouch himself was a very loyal DE to Voldemort, so > there's his experience. Yes, but he wouldn't have had very much time at all to gain that experience. In fact, if we assume that Voldemort did not invite minors or schoolchildren to join his elite circle of Death Eaters, then Crouch Jr. could not have been a DE for very long at all before Voldemort's fall. Not only was he a minor; he would also still have been in school. Sirius says of Crouch Jr. that at the time of his trial "he couldn't have been more than 19 years old." As others have pointed out, the fact that Sirius uses the number "nineteen" here is highly suggestive. It's not the age that one would cite if one were making a guess about somebody's age based on their appearance. In that case, one would say, "he couldn't have been more than twenty," or perhaps (given that 17 is the age of majority in the wizarding world) "he couldn't have been much more than seventeen." That Sirius uses the specific age 19 implies to my mind that what Sirius *did* know was Crouch's year at Hogwarts (in fact, he almost surely knew this, as their time at school would have overlapped). What Sirius did *not* know was the specific date of Crouch's birth. He knew that Crouch couldn't have been over the age of 19 because if Crouch had been, then he would have been in the next year up while at Hogwarts. But Sirius does not say that Crouch *was* 19, because not knowing his birthday, Sirius realizes that it is equally possible that Crouch was still only 18 at the time of his trial. Just as sixth years like Angelina Johnson and the twins in _GoF_ can be either 16 or 17, depending on when their birthdays fall, so a one- year-out-of-schooler like Crouch could have been either 18 or 19 at the time of his trial. What this means is that we know approximately how long Crouch had been out of school when Voldemort fell. He had been out of school for less than a year. I don't believe that a wizard that young, no matter how talented a student he might have been, could possibly have developed the mastery of the Dark Arts that we see him exhibit in _GoF_ by the time he was sent to prison, and after he was sent to prison, he would have had no opportunity to do so at all. I don't really think that anyone gets very much in the way of magical studying done at Azkaban. Certainly sickly Crouch would have been far too busy dying of dementor despair in his cell to be spending much of his time learning (without a wand) how to master the Unforgivables. And after his rescue from prison, he was a slave to his father's Imperius Curse. Yet Crouch Jr. is *exceptionally* skilled. He can Confund a powerful magical artifact. He can ambush Krum, murder his father, and transfigure a corpse into a bone. He can cast the Unforgivables not only in a classroom setting, but also under extremely adverse conditions: during the Third Task, he places Viktor Krum under the Imperius Curse while patrolling around the hedge maze, which means that he must have done so in the dark, probably with very poor visibility, and either without invocation or in a low tone of voice, as he was neither seen nor heard by Harry or Cedric. Even when he had just been brought back from the very brink of death, Crouch Jr was remarkably powerful for his age and experience. In his Veritaserum confession, he explains that once he had been nursed back to health after his rescue from Azkaban: "I had to be controlled. My father had to use a number of spells to subdue me." In fact, his father eventually has to resort to the Imperius Curse to subdue him. And his father is no slouch himself in the magic department. Even Sirius, who has every reason to hate Crouch Sr, describes him as "a great wizard...powerfully magical." Yet we are to believe that this powerful and experienced wizard had such trouble subduing his weak and sickly twenty year old son? Yes, Crouch Jr. was a good student. He got his 13 OWLS. But I don't think that's enough to account for the degree of magical prowess that he exhibits. There is only one explanation that I think satisfactorily accounts for it. Allegiance to Voldemort had imbued him with special powers. Grey Wolf wrote: > And now, for a possible explanation which I'm not sure I believe: > could Voldemort have GIVEN them powers, like on loan, in exchange > for their help? That would explain why people with the > constitutions of stones (Crabbe and Goyle) and nearly as > intelligent, can cast those difficult spells. I do believe this to be the case, Grey Wolf, for reasons that I first outlined back in March, in message #35473. To recap: There is some suggestion in the books that either Voldemort himself or allegiance to Dark forces in general might indeed have the ability to imbue wizards with magical powers previously beyond their capabilities. In the Shrieking Shack scene of PoA, Pettigrew offers up Sirius' escape from Azkaban as evidence of his Dark allegiance: "He's got dark powers the rest of us can only dream of! How else did he get out of there? I suppose He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named taught him a few tricks?" Of course, it is actually not Sirius but Peter who is the traitor, which does make you wonder if Peter might not be speaking from some personal experience here. Might not he himself have been "taught a few tricks" by Voldemort? He certainly does seem to be *extremely* magically capable for someone who is constantly accused of being a weak wizard. Sirius Black is not the only person who claims that Pettigrew was never much of a wizard. Voldemort says so as well, and so does Pettigrew's old teacher, McGonagall: "Hero-worshipped Black and Potter. . . .Never quite in their league, talent-wise. I was often rather sharp with him." Of course, Sirius and James were extraordinarily talented; even an average student would not have been "in their league." But McGonagall's claim that she was often "sharp" with Pettigrew implies to my mind that he was a lackluster student at best. In canon, the student we most often see McGonagall being "sharp" with is Neville Longbottom, a poor student. McGonagall also describes Pettigrew as "always hopeless at duelling." This, however, really doesn't describe the Pettigrew that we know at *all.* The Pettigrew that *we* know can pull off a perfectly-timed explosive spell that kills a dozen people in a single blast. He can not only cast such a spell; he can also cast it with no invocation, with one hand quite literally behind his *back,* and timed to coincide perfectly with an animagus transformation. He can take advantage of a split-second opportunity to seize a fallen wand and then -- *with somebody else's wand!* -- cast not one but *two* spells (one on Ron and one on Crookshanks), all before Harry can even manage to snap out an "Expelliarmus!" He can overpower Bertha Jorkins. He can AK Cedric Diggory. And he can conduct what would appear to be a extremely difficult and involved piece of ritual magic through to its successful conclusion, even after severing his own hand. This is a weak wizard? This is a hopeless duellist? No. This isn't. This is a competent wizard, and a very very *good* duellist. So what accounts for the discrepancy here? Why does everyone, Voldemort included, insist on referring to Pettigrew as a "weak wizard?" Well, one explanation is that he gained an enormous boost in magical power after he sold his soul to Voldemort and accepted the Dark Mark as a token of this mystical bond. It seems to me that casting in ones lot with Dark forces really *ought* to grant one a boost in magical power. It is, after all, traditional. There's an enormous weight of cultural and literary precedent behind the notion that when you sell your soul to the Devil, you do *get* something for it, even if you pay far too high a price for it in the end. It also seems to me this would explain Dark magic's siren song appeal to the members of House Slytherin, whose characteristics include a disregard for rules, the desire for power, and the willingness to use any means to achieve their ends. Cindy is not so convinced: > The idea that DEs get a power loan from Voldemort makes some sense, > it really does. But if that were true, Peter really wouldn't need > to frame Sirius and then spend 12 years as a rat. Peter could use > his enhanced powers to blast Sirius in the street. When the > authorities arrive, Peter could just say that he was merely > defending himself against the completely and utterly mad Sirius > Black. > No, I think Sirius would have won that duel, and Peter knew it. But Peter wouldn't have engaged him in an honorable duel if he'd just wanted to kill him. Peter would have sneakily blasted him without fair warning, just like he sneakily blasted those muggles and then transformed into a rat without fair warning. And I rather suspect that he would have had a fair chance of pulling it off, too, given how flawlessly he managed to engineer the frame job. For that matter, given that Peter had clearly planned the entire thing ahead of time, he must have arranged to run into Sirius on that street corner, which means that he probably could have cursed Sirius in the back before he had even been spotted, if killing Sirius had been all that he had really wanted to do. I mean, this is Peter Pettigrew we're talking about. He doesn't *have* a sense of honor. But clearing his own name wasn't the most important part of the plan at all. Faking his own *death* was the most important part of the plan, because at that point in time Peter wasn't nearly as worried about Sirius or the Ministry as he was about the other Death Eaters, whom he feared might hold him responsible for Voldemort's disappearance. Sirius accuses him of as much in the Shrieking Shack, and I think that Sirius was spot-on there. Killing Sirius and getting himself proclaimed a hero by the MoM would only have solved *one* of Peter's problems -- and the far less pressing of his two problems at that. Cindy again: > I have rather mixed feelings about the power of the DEs. On the one > hand, DEs include characters like Crabbe Sr. and Goyle, Sr., who > are supposed to be dim like their sons. The DEs can't hit Harry in > the graveyard. And they let themselves in for all manner of abuse > at the hands of their sadistic master. You think those Death Eaters were really *trying* to hit Harry in the graveyard? I've always been a bit dubious on that point. True, there is a fine upstanding genre tradition of sending ones Minions off to be trained at the Storm Trooper School of Markmanship, but still....still.... You know, if *I'd* been one of those DEs in the graveyard... Er, which I was most decidedly *not.* But, uh, I mean, *if,* *if* I had been, then I sure as hell wouldn't have been trying to hit him. I would have been aiming just about a foot to the left of him. Because weird things just sometimes *happen* when you hit this kid with spells, right? I mean, just look at what happened to Voldemort! How did *that* happen? Nobody knows. Nobody has the slightest idea. But one thing's for sure: there's something very peculiar about this boy, and strange bad inexplicable things tend to happen to people who are foolish enough to mess with him. I mean, *once,* okay. Once is a fluke. Once could happen to anyone. And indeed, for a while back there, it was beginning to look like a fluke. Here's Voldemort, he's returned, he's smacking Harry Potter with Cruciatus right and left, and the kid is screaming and writhing and shaking helplessly and all of the things that he's supposed to be doing as a result of being in excuciating agony. All to the good. All is right with the universe. So all of the DEs are laughing with pure nervous *relief,* because as it turns out, they don't really have to be frightened of this boy at all. And then Voldemort tells him to bow, and by God, the kid bows! So now they're laughing even harder. All of those years of being terrified of Harry Potter, and as it turns out, he's just a normal kid after all! What a relief! Whatever happened thirteen years ago? Well, that must have just been one of those once in a lifetime blue moon events, like a rain of frogs, or spontaneous combustion. One for the record books. No need to worry about it any more. But then things start to go horribly wrong. The kid gets hit with an Imperius, and he's not begging for mercy or worshipping at Voldemort's feet or doing *anything* that he's probably being commanded to do. Instead, he refuses. He *resists.* He resists the Dark Lord's Imperius. Oh. That is just *so* not good. The DEs stop laughing. So Voldemort threatens him with another Cruciatus, and they all start giggling again, a bit hysterically, really, because the Cruciatus is good, the Cruciatus *works,* the Cruciatus doesn't cause any of these...unsettling things to happen, even the *kid* seems to be afraid of the Cruciatus. Maybe things are really okay after all... And then there's Priori Incantatem. Oh. Now, what the hell is *this*? Both the Potter boy and Voldemort are being lifted right off the *ground,* and there's this weird bubble, and this strange golden thread connecting their wands, and nobody knows what they're supposed to be doing, and Voldemort looks actually *astonished,* so it's clear that even *he* doesn't have the slightest idea what this new thing is or what to do about it, and then there are these bloody *ghosts* or something up there -- it's all just enough to Freak You OUT, is what it is -- and then suddenly it's over, and the kid is running like hell while Voldemort himself seems to be caught in some sort of ghost huddle or something, and... And then you're ordered to Stun him. Stun Harry Potter. Uh-huh. Oh, yeah. Right. Like I want anything from my wand *touching* this kid. God only knows what might happen to you, if you hit the Potter boy with a spell. He's some sort of *freak,* is what he is, and he does nasty inexplicable things to the people who mess with him. So I'd aim to miss. Not too obviously, mind you. Voldemort might notice that. But definitely to miss. Just a foot or so to the side. Because really, it's just ever so much *safer* that way. No. I don't think that there's anything wrong with the Death Eaters' aim. Their aim is just fine. It's their *nerve* that could use a little bit of work. Grey Wolf again, on the DEs: > Lately I've noticed that we have been picking on several of the DEs > over their lack of power - Wormtail especially - but there is > something that we must take in mind. . . . .They may look pathetic > powerless, but they're not. They're powerful, mean and VERY bad. Yeah, I agree. They've got dark powers the rest of us can only dream of. I'd watch my back around those DEs, all right. But they're not *all* bad, Grey Wolf. They're morally grey. Really and truly they are. -- Elkins From datalaur at yahoo.com Thu Jun 13 21:39:05 2002 From: datalaur at yahoo.com (datalaur) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:39:05 -0000 Subject: Two clarifications, was Re: Voldemorts Resurrection WAS l... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39829 Amanda Geist: > First point--English usage. I would like to clarify those particular words "stopper death." This is not an antique or quaint way of saying "stop" death. In fact, they clarified it in the movie script, probably for this very reason, although it damaged the flow of the speech irreparably ('put a stopper in death,' indeed). > > To "stopper death" is to put death in a bottle; it's a poetic way of saying "to put death in a bottle and put the stopper in." Stopper = > > > the cork, the thing on top of the bottle. Gray wolf: > > I want to make a point: in my tranlated version it says "stop death" Anyway, in the film, "put a stopper to death" still means the same I understood from my version: prevent death from occouring Eloise: > I have to say that my interpretation of this has always agreed with Grey Wolf's. I read it as to confine death, as it were, so that it can't get out. > (It comes at the end of a short list of things that are for the benefit of > the potion-maker (fame, glory) with which immortality would go well. Agree with Eloise and Grey wolf. I think the issue can be settled by "translating" the terms into plain english and deciding what Snape wants the kids to hear. Does he want them to know he can teach them to "get fame, get glory, and kill people"? Does he want them to think he can teach them about fame, glory and being victorious over death? Surely Snape is not telling them "I can teach you to kill people." Even were he allowed by Dumbledore to do that, can you imagine anyone but the darker Slyths being motivated by this? Snape is trying to get the kids *interested* in Potions (and to impress them with what he can teach), not turn them against the subject. And of course there isn't any outcry from the noble Gryffs, so the kids must interpret the remark as "I can teach you to defeat death". datalaur From bard7696 at aol.com Thu Jun 13 21:55:33 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 21:55:33 -0000 Subject: Time turner whodunnit/MAGIC DISHWASHER In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39830 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > darrin_burnett" wrote: > > > Yes, but why wouldn't Snape know? I would think ALL the faculty > > members would have to be appraised of Hermione's schedule and the > > method she was using to take seven classes in a five-period week. > Grey Wolf wrote: > IMO he does know. If you have been following the MAGIC DISHWASHER > theory, you'll notice one of it's main points is that Dumbledore has > Snape well informed of everything that's going on. Only that, appart > from being very nasty and a great potion teacher/master, he's also a > good actor, and he doesn't want Fudge to know what's really going on > (not that he needs much help, but you never know). > I dunno. You have to swallow a lot to go with this facet of the Magic Dishwasher theory. Snape was REALLY ticked off at the end of PA and wasn't informed that Sirius Black was on the side of the good guys until the end of GoF. So, if he thought Hermione had anything to do with helping Sirius escape, I have to believe he'd rat her out. At the end of PA, no one really knew how much of a coward Fudge was. There is a line in GoF about Dumbledore "seeing Fudge for the first time" Out of spite, Snape basically forced Lupin to resign by letting it slip he was a werewolf. If Snape has been part of the anti-Voldemort team for all this time, I don't think he does that. I find it easier to believe Snape wasn't told about Hermione having the Time-Turner than him knowing all along and play-acting for Fudge. Maybe only the affected professors were told. Perhaps Dumbledore decided it wasn't a good idea for the head of Slytherin house to know a Time-Turner was around. > > And I would think Hermione taking two classes at once would be > > noticeable to more than just Harry and Ron. All the students in both > > classes would wonder about it too. > > > > "darrin burnett" > Grey Wolf: > She's ignored by most of the students. I don't find that hard to > believe that no-one notices her multiple classes except those really > close to her (but Harry and Ron are not particularly focused) and > faculty teachers, who may or may not have been told at the beggining of > the year (although I'd say they have all been informed, since it's a > potentially catastrophic object). > By third year, I wonder how "ignored" Harry, Ron and Hermione really are. These guys defeated most of the teachers' protective spells in their first-year and Harry and Ron took on the Chamber of Secrets basilisk in second-year. If I was a regular Hogwarts student, I'd make it a point to pay attention whenever these three were skulking around. Now, to answer mine own question... Perhaps people thought she was just working through the courses on her own, kind of like a correspondence course. She was taking Muggle Studies and Ancient Runes, two courses without a lot of practical studies. Darrin Burnett -- Wish I had a godfather who bought me Firebolts From nmfry at hotmail.com Thu Jun 13 20:32:07 2002 From: nmfry at hotmail.com (N Fry) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 20:32:07 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Diary! vs. Vapor!Voldemort (WAS Voldemort's Resurrection) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39831 Pip said: >I don't know how connected the diary was to Voldemort himself. It could >have been a means of communication between Lucius and Voldemort Marina said: >I still think the events of CoS were planned by Diary!Voldemort, not >Vapor!Voldemort, I have to agree with Marina. I unfortunately don't have my books here with me, so I can't quote specific passages. If I correctly remember Riddle's explanation to Harry about how he used Ginny, he says that he was *very* interested in everything she had to say about Harry, especially dealing with Voldemort's downfall. I had always assumed that was because Diary!V had no knowledge of this. IIRC, Dumbledore speculates that 16 yr old Tom must have captured an impression (shadow? memory? What would you call that thing?) of himself in the diary. I took this to mean that Diary!V had all the knowledge, memories, etc. of Tom *up to that point in time*, but that he doesn't have any connection to Voldemort after he is stored in the diary. Because of my assumption, I always considered Diary!V's interest in Ginny's information to be due to the fact that this is all new information to him. Although, I must admit that now that I'm thinking about it enough to put it in writing, I guess that Diary!V could have still had contact with Vapor!V, so his conversations with Ginny could have been an attempt to gather info about how Harry survived the attack. It isn't until they are in the Chamber that Harry talks about the Mother Love Theory. (A bit OT - Diary!Voldemort obviously didn't read Grey Wolf's recommendations to check out the Evil Overlords website. If he had, he would have known to kill Harry right away instead of explaining his whole plan and then calling the snake to do the dirty work. ) Speaking of preserving images of one's self... After all the speculations of Dumbledore's possible death, I wonder if he could create something similar to the diary. I know some people have suggested that the pensieve could be used to assist Harry if something happened to Dumbledore, but I got the impression that they were only referring to his memories and not to an actual preserved version of himself. ~ Nik (who is imagining a confrontation between Diary!Voldemort and Pensieve!Dumbledore and wishing that she had her books here at work so she could look up more specific support than "I think I remember one of the characters saying...") _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From divaclv at aol.com Thu Jun 13 22:30:50 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:30:50 -0000 Subject: Time turner - how dont they know? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39832 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > Yes, but why wouldn't Snape know? I would think ALL the faculty > members would have to be appraised of Hermione's schedule and the > method she was using to take seven classes in a five-period week. > > And I would think Hermione taking two classes at once would be > noticeable to more than just Harry and Ron. All the students in both > classes would wonder about it too. The teachers would know, but it doesn't necessarily follow that the students would. Harry and Ron seem to be the only two with enough contact with Hermione to realize "something" strange is happening with her, but they don't know what. > But when Fudge said: "They can't be in two places at once" then it > should have been Snape who got the light bulb off in his head. Of > course, he'd have had to prove they mis-used the TT and maybe he > wouldn't be able to. > > "darrin burnett" All I can think of is a line from "Pride and Prejudice" (which JKR, Austen fan that she is, may be familiar with): "Angry people are not always wise." Snape was probably so enraged at being cheated of his revenge that he wasn't thinking clearly. Or maybe he figured out whatever Harry and Hermione had done was done with Dumbledore's sanction, and he was fighting a losing battle. ~Christi From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Fri Jun 14 00:03:24 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:03:24 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort's Resurrection WAS The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <17773039873.20020613170324@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39833 Wednesday, June 12, 2002, 3:16:44 PM, alhewison wrote: a> Actually, I disagree here, although I admit that canon is confusing. a> Quirrell is not introduced as a new teacher, which he probably would a> have been had he just taken up the post. Also, when Harry first meets a> Quirrell in the Leaky Cauldron Hagrid tells him that Quirrell *is* a a> teacher at Hogwarts, rather than he is going to be a teacher at a> Hogwarts. Finally, when Harry asks Percy who the teacher sitting next a> to Quirrell is, during the banquet, Percy says (memory here not a> verbatim), so you already know Professor Quirrell. This implies to me a> that Percy already knows Quirrell, which he probably wouldn't if a> Quirrell was just starting. In addition, in the ever-popular graveyard scene, Voldy, when he gets to Quirrell in his "How I Did It" story, says, "A wizard ... wandered across my path... Oh, he seemed the very chance I had been dreaming of... for he was a teacher at Dumbledore's school... he was easy to bend to my will..." Note he says, "he WAS a teacher" as opposed to, "he WAS GOING TO BE a teacher", implying that he had already been teaching there. On another note -- Does it seem as strange to you as it does to me how easy it was for V to brainwash Q? -- Dave From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 14 00:03:36 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:03:36 -0000 Subject: Would JKR make Lupin evil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39834 Me: > > If JKR only put Lupin in the story to be the poster boy for persons with disabilities, and the only reaction she wants to evoke is, "Awww, poor woobie!" then I concede. This particular hedgehog won't fly. Evil!Lupin is the product of nobody's imagination but my own. Marina: > That's a bit of a strawman argument, if you ask me. The only possible alternative to the Evil!Lupin storyline is pathetic propaganda?<< Er, no. I was countering Ali's argument, which I should have quoted: >>>it depends on whether you believe that JKR is using Lupin to make a positive message. Evil Lupin gives a warning, but it isn't positive.<<< Ali was saying, if I understood her correctly, that Lupin has to be good or it would send a negative message about seriously ill people because he is symbolic of all seriously ill people. I wanted to show that the message could be nuanced and still be effective in persuading people to become committed advocates and care-givers. Marina: >>> If a potentially good and noble man is going to be pushed toward evil by bigotry and hate, I wanna see it happen *now*, not hear a speech about how it happened fifteen years ago. "Show, don't tell" is the motto.<<< The most important part of the scenario hasn't happened yet. Remember, this only works if Dumbledore is betrayed. That can happen on stage. So can Harry's confrontation with Remus when he figures out the truth. Ultimately the story isn't about Remus, it's about Harry. In my version, it's about about Harry realizing what happened to the man he thought he knew. By the end of GoF, Harry has been exposed as a parselmouth, suspected of mental instability and people are "formulating their own theories as to how Cedric died." (I wonder if they've come up with MAGIC DISHWASHER?) How will the wizarding world react? We don't have to see it happen to Lupin, if it threatens to happen to Harry too. By the time he confronts Lupin, sometime in Book Seven, Harry will have had plenty of time to experience some of what Lupin's been dealing with all his life. Pippin From bard7696 at aol.com Fri Jun 14 01:42:45 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 01:42:45 -0000 Subject: A theory about Severus Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39835 Don't know if this is a new theory, as I just got here a couple days ago, but... What if Snape is one of the few, or maybe only, students to transfer out of the house from which he or she was originally sorted? We know that Snape arrived at Hogwarts with some interest in the Dark Arts, and "knew more curses than many seventh-years." In other words, he was a darker Hermione. Remember, she came to Hogwarts more knowledgable than many older students as well. But let us say that Snape was befriended, maybe on the train, by Potter, Black and Lupin (Pettigrew would come later) and was even sorted into Gryffindor. First year went well, and Snape forgot his interest in the dark arts. But then, toward the end of first year, some kind of disagreement took place between James and Snape. Perhaps it was over Quidditch. Perhaps over Lily. By the end-of-the-year feast, they loathed each other, and the Gryffindor prefect met with Dumbledore and said they wanted Snape out. He agreed to be resorted into Slytherin, and saved a special loathing for Potter and his crew. James, shortly after he kept Snape away from the Shrieking Shack, tried to approach him, but Snape refused. Snape graduated with top honours in Potions and began his career as an instructor at one of the other magic schools in Europe, perhaps a lower-level, regional one for students who can't get into one of the big three. He became a Death Eater of course, and loved it, but then caught wind of Voldemort's plan to kill James and Harry. Something stirred in Snape, and although he tried to fight it, he found he could not let his old enemy be slaughtered. Perhaps it was the debt to James that he refused to acknolwedge, finally coming forward. Snape tipped off Dumbledore, and gave up the life he thought he was chosen for. When the tip didn't work -- and James and Lily were still killed -- his debt became even stronger, as did his hatred for Sirius Black. He had sacrificed a life he enjoyed to repay a debt and Black, given what Snape knew at the time, had ruined his chance. Dumbledore offered Snape the Potions job and Snape, feeling like he had no place else to go, took it. He wanted to kill Black, but deep down, his cowardice prevented him. Snape felt indebted to Dumbledore, and will stay so long as that debt is unpaid in his mind. Then Harry came along, and Snape loathed him, but felt this was the way to protect the son when he failed the father. Now Sirius is innocent and the man Snape has feared and hated is his...ally? It is intolerable, and he feels his old master calling to him. This debt to James is heavy, and he wants to lay it down. Perhaps this time, he will. There. I am not ready to jump on the "Snape is a good guy all along" routine. For JKR to do that now would be to sell out the character that has long been one of the better-drawn ones in the series. I see Snape as a mostly evil man who keeps being brought back by strands of goodness. His original friendship with the Potters, his debt to James, Dumbledore's trust, all keep yanking him back from where he really wants to be. Darrin Burnett -- How did Lupin become the bad guy again? From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri Jun 14 02:17:05 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 02:17:05 -0000 Subject: Would JKR make Lupin evil? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39836 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: >> Ali was saying, if I understood her correctly, that Lupin has to be > good or it would send a negative message about seriously ill > people because he is symbolic of all seriously ill people. I > wanted to show that the message could be nuanced and still be > effective in persuading people to become committed advocates > and care-givers. > The most important part of the scenario hasn't happened yet. > Remember, this only works if Dumbledore is betrayed. Well, the Temptation storyline I've speculated about would illustrate the nuances quite thoroughly without the potentially prejudice-confirming connotations of an Evil!Lupin. Assuming he resists the temptation, of course. I think he will, but then I also think, for reasons I've expounded elsewhere, that a betrayed Dumbledore is unneccessary. But if you insist on it -- well, then Lupin just has to yield to the temptation. After all, one doesn't have to bee evil for fifteen years before pulling off a betrayal. > Ultimately the story isn't about Remus, it's about Harry. In my > version, it's about about Harry realizing what happened to the > man he thought he knew. But if Lupin has to struggle with choosing sides now, Harry can actually be there to observe the process. He can even affect the outcome, for better or for worse, knowingly or in ignorance. Personally, I don't think Evil!Lupin is going to happen. But I do think he will prove to be quite a bit shadier than Harry thinks. After all, he survived 12 years of being unable to find legitimate employment, and our glimpse of Knockturn Alley suggests that opportunities for illegitemate employment are out there for those who look. The WW has an underside, and I doubt it caters solely to Death Eaters, or even solely to Ever-So-Evil people. If Lupin has contacts there, Dumbledore may very well have a good use for him, but not in a way that Harry would be comfortable with. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From elfundeb at aol.com Fri Jun 14 04:28:46 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:28:46 EDT Subject: Time-Turner (WAS Spying game/ Vodemort's resurrectio... Message-ID: <7d.28afdcca.2a3acafe@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39837 I'm going to tackle this one more time, because it really does intrigue me: > Eloise: > So....Hermione attends Divination. Whilst she is there, the Arithmancy > class > takes place, *without* Hermione. As far as the other students are concerned > she isn't there - or is she? Not until/unless she does actually use the TT. > So if she uses it, is she changing something or not? And if Harry was sent > from Divination to the Arithmancy classroom, would he see her there or not? > The other students always see Hermione in Arithmancy. She actually is in two places at once, so if Trelawney sent Harry with a note for Professor Vector, Harry would see Hermione both in Divination and in Arithmancy. And the professors somehow didn't notice this all year. > > At the end of that Potions lesson, there are two possible courses for the > last hour to have taken, one in which Hermione was witnessed in two other > classes and one in which she attends only one. > But from everyone else's perspective, there's only one outcome of the last hour, and that's that Hermione attended all three classes simultaneously. Because the present unfolding of events takes into account an event that will happen in the future, i.e., that at the end of the hour Hermione *will* use the TT and repeat the hour. Under the time-turner concept, time itself is omniscient. > > (I'm going to break off for a minute. That's where my problem is, right > there. Harry has already seen himself. Therefore he's already turned back > time. Therefore, Sirius is already free (or nearly, as I'm not LOON enough > to > work out the precise timing). My LOON analysis says Sirius is already free. > Back to the mechanics [snip] > > But I still come back to the thought that it is very strange that one of > the > most important wizarding laws is that you mustn't change time if, in fact, > it > is impossible to do so. [snip] > But I wonder what 'changing time' means? Is it saying the TT itself is > illegal? Hermione seems clearly to be indicating that whatever they are > aboutto do *is* illegal, yet the TT apparently has legitimate use, to which > McGonnagall confirmed it was going to be confined. I haven't decided whether Hermione means that they were acting illegally because the Ministry had not authorized her to use the Time-Turner for purposes other than studies (i.e., being in 2 places at once) or because there was something inherently wrong about what they attempted to do. I think the latter, because they're in a position of having to use their 3 hours as HH2 to fulfill a particular destiny, which is extraordinarily risky and complicated because they don't really know what they're supposed to be doing. But they are forbidden to change anything they know has happened, because of the consequences. I don't think it's impossible for Harry to pick up the Invisibility Cloak (that would perhaps fall into the same category as killing one's own other self, which Hermione clearly states has happened), but it would erase part of the future, throwing everyone into the double-history paradox. > > Debbie: > > The problem with using a Time-Turner, as Harry and Hermione do, is that > you > >*can't* use it to change events. That's why Harry can't pick up the > Invisibility Cloak > >-- because Harry1 has lived through the events and Harry2 knows it wasn't > >picked up. > > Eloise: > But Harry2 doesn't know it *can't* be, because that's what he wants to do. But Harry's not authorized to use the TT, so he hasn't been instructed on what happens when someone tries to change an event. His natural instinct is to try to improve history, which he may not do because he'll fall into the paradox of creating multiple histories. > Debbie: > > >The only legitimate purpose of a Time-Turner is to be able to do two things > at once, which is why Hermione was made to > >promise that she would never use it for anything but her studies. > > Eloise: > Which goes back to Sirius and Buckbeak being both dead and > alive.....doesn't > it......? Well, no, there's only one history, it involved HH1 and HH2 acting simultaneously. HH1 see Harry2 and HH2 see HH1, so we know there's only one sequence of events. And neither one of them is dead. And in the same manner, each class period was only held once, but Hermione1 attended Divination, Hermione2 attended Arithmancy, etc. > > Debbie: > > What Harry and Hermione were doing was in fact really dangerous, using it > to > >influence events that (to their minds only) had already happened as HH2 > were > >experiencing them. > > Eloise: > Why was it dangerous if there was so much inevitibility about the > situation? > For instance, there was no danger of not getting back to the Hospital Wing > in > time, as it had already happened. There was a danger. They had a destiny to fulfill as HH2, and part of that destiny was making sure they were in the right place when their Time-Turned time was up. Harry's problem was that he wanted to stray from that destiny, as when he wanted to pick up the cloak. > > I'm not trying to be difficult or argumentative in all this, I'm just > genuinely intrigued by the whole idea. > > And needs to go and think about Snape and Quidemort again. And get some > sleep, as she had about as much as Debbie last night (if her understanding > of > time zones is correct) and hopes Debbie hasn't felt as rough as she has all > day! > It's a five time zone difference, if I'm not mistaken. And I wasn't really tired, because I took the day off. :-) Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nicholaswebb at hotmail.com Fri Jun 14 09:31:04 2002 From: nicholaswebb at hotmail.com (ghastrick) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:31:04 -0000 Subject: of rats, toes, and wizards (was: The Spying Game) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39838 Amy Z wrote: I assumed Dumbledore wondered about the missing toe, actually. If he knew Peter could transform into a rat, and saw that this rat had a toe missing (and all that could be found of Peter was, famously, his finger) it might be prudent to check that the rat was what it seemed. Actually Amy, Dumbledore didn't know that Pettigrew was an Animagus until Lupin told him at the end of PoA. Dumbledore said at the end that he thought the Marauders' greatest achievement was not becoming Animagi, but keeping it from him. From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Fri Jun 14 09:39:06 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:39:06 -0000 Subject: Time turner whodunnit/MAGIC DISHWASHER In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39839 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > darrin_burnett" wrote: > > > > > Yes, but why wouldn't Snape know? I would think ALL the faculty > > > members would have to be appraised of Hermione's schedule and > > > the method she was using to take seven classes in a five-period > > > week. > > > > > Grey Wolf wrote: > > IMO he does know. If you have been following the MAGIC DISHWASHER > > theory, you'll notice one of it's main points is that Dumbledore > > has Snape well informed of everything that's going on. Only that, > > apart from being very nasty and a great potion teacher/master, > > he's also a good actor, and he doesn't want Fudge to know what's > > really going on (not that he needs much help, but you never know). > Darrin replied: > I dunno. You have to swallow a lot to go with this facet of the > Magic Dishwasher theory. Snape was REALLY ticked off at the end of > PA and wasn't informed that Sirius Black was on the side of the > good guys until the end of GoF. > > So, if he thought Hermione had anything to do with helping Sirius > escape, I have to believe he'd rat her out. > Out of spite, Snape basically forced Lupin to resign by letting it > slip he was a werewolf. If Snape has been part of the anti- > Voldemort team for all this time, I don't think he does that. > OK - Snape forcing Lupin to resign *is* compatible with MAGIC DISHWASHER - and in fact there are several possible scenarios. I'll play with two. **IMAGINARY Scenario One**. After a year of Snape telling him Lupin cannot be trusted, Dumbledore and Snape have a post-Sirius-Escape discussion which goes something like Snape: "I have told you and told you that Lupin might be working with Black, given you reasons why he might be a Death Eater [see Pippin's excellent series of posts on Ever So Evil Lupin- #39822 is a good summary], argued that he isn't reliable about taking his potions - and look what happened tonight. He ran after Sirius without even thinking it might be a good idea to warn you; didn't take his potion; nearly killed Harry; and is currently wandering around the Forbidden Forest in werewolf form. Even if you *still* believe he is on our side he's too much of a loose cannon to have in Hogwarts." Dumbledore: "I do still believe Lupin is loyal, Severus. But I agree that he keeps back far too many secrets. He could well have ruined everything tonight. Perhaps it might be better to find him a role that does not include teaching at Hogwarts. I think I will have to ask for his resignation in the morning." Snape: "No. Don't *ask* for his resignation. I still believe he is a Death-Eater; you'll have to give far too many explanations to get him to resign from the first good job he's had in years. He knows I hate him, he knows I don't trust him; if I announce to my Slytherins that he's a werewolf they'll make so much fuss he'll be forced to resign. And Lupin is not likely to ask for any explanations if I do that - after tonight he'll be convinced he knows exactly why I did it." This scenario does rather paint Dumbledore in an extremely 'grey' light in agreeing to a rather Slytherinesque subterfuge; so I'll also offer: ** IMAGINARY Scenario Two** Snape and Dumbledore in post-Sirus Escape discussions as before. After a night in which he's been knocked unconscious, nearly killed by Dementors, had to crawl sickeningly to Fudge, needed to trust Dumbledore and collude in the escape of someone he hates; and then, worse, have to cover the escape up afterwards by convincing the Minister for Magic that he's a complete nutter, Snape is not in the happiest of moods. Matters have been made worse by Poppy telling him that the anti- headache potion shouldn't be taken with concussion, so he also has a terrible headache. ;-) Snape: "I have told you and told you that Lupin is not to be trusted - look at the reasons I gave you in Scenario One above. You are very fond of everyone's right to make their own choices, Headmaster, so now I'm telling you that I have made a choice of my own. Whatever your wishes, I am no longer willing to have Remus Lupin in this school. I am now going to go bed. In the morning I am going to inform my Slytherins that Lupin is a werewolf. That will force his resignation; if you find that you object to this so strongly that you no longer wish me to work with you, then you can have my resignation at the same time. Goodnight!" And Snape stomps off. I like Scenario Two - it makes Dumbledore less 'grey' and makes Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore much less blind than, say, Hagrid's. Snape becomes someone who is willing to disagree with Dumbledore (and act on this) if he feels strongly enough about it - but who will *not* do so in an emergency situation. Darrin wrote: > I find it easier to believe Snape wasn't told about Hermione having > the Time-Turner than him knowing all along and play-acting for > Fudge. Maybe only the affected professors were told. Perhaps > Dumbledore decided it wasn't a good idea for the head of Slytherin > house to know a Time-Turner was around. Why, was he going to steal it off Hermione? [grin]. Frankly, with all the exceptionally dangerous potions Snape knows about, I don't think a Time-Turner would be any additional danger. But you seem to be a Snape-Is-Ever-So-Evil supporter, and since the most basic premise of MAGIC DISHWASHER is that Snape is NOT evil, we're unlikely to agree. ;-) But I hope I've shown that Snape getting Lupin fired doesn't necessarily HAVE to be completely underhand, or to have a purely spiteful motive (I'm not denying that Snape does dislike Lupin, or that his dislike may be a *part* of his motivation). Scenario Two actually doesn't *need* MAGIC DISHWASHER to be plausible. You can still have Snape not knowing what the heck is going on and saying 'I'm going to force Lupin to resign, and if you don't like it you can have my resignation instead...' Pip From nicholaswebb at hotmail.com Fri Jun 14 09:41:04 2002 From: nicholaswebb at hotmail.com (ghastrick) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:41:04 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Krum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39840 > Let's try to break down what we are really talking about. We have a > seventh-year going to a prom-type dance with a fourth-year. In > American high school terms, we have a senior asking out a freshman, > which happens WAY more than anyone would like to believe. > > And what really happened? They went. They talked over dinner. They > had at least one dance. > > What didn't happen? They didn't end up in any of those bushes that > Snape was busting apart. Hermione didn't get home too late. In fact, > she made it home before Harry did, because he walked in on her and Ron fighting. I think Hermione's virtue is intact. Maybe for one night, Hermione enjoyed being appreciated for something other than her mind. Not only are her two best friends boys, she really has no interaction at all with other girls except Ginny Weasley. You get the impression that Lavender Brown and Parvati Partil, etc... have their own little girly clique, and Hermione is kind of the bookish tomboy, a younger Nancy Drew, except without the boyfriend Nick. For one night, she got to be a princess. Now, is Hermione going to turn into a party girl, even if she does see Viktor again? Come on, we're talking about a girl who once traveled through time to take more classes. She's Muggle-born in a world where that can limit you -- think of Hermione's future employment chances at the ministry so long as Fudge is there, for instance. Just like many minorities in the real Muggle world, she has to work twice as hard and knows it. I doubt seriously we're looking at the descent of Hermione here. As for Viktor, I wouldn't worry too much about him. In fact, I would hope this has been an eye-opener for him. Hermione is not a unique girl by any means; there are plenty of smart, pretty girls out there if you look hard enough. Maybe the Quidditch God will be a bit more selective when he gets back to Bulgaria. "darrin burnett" _____________________________________________________________________ Very eloquent reply, darrin. But I must take issue with your final paragraph. Why would Krum abandon Hermione for another girl? He seems to be passionately in love with her (In so far as that walking block is capable of passion). It is Hermione, not Krum, who is showing waning interest. Also he wanted her to visit her in Bulgaria, and I think she will take him up on his offer. So when he gets back to Bulgaria, he may have her with him. From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Fri Jun 14 10:24:41 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 10:24:41 -0000 Subject: of rats, toes, and wizards (was: The Spying Game) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39841 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ghastrick" wrote: > Amy Z wrote: > > I assumed Dumbledore wondered about the missing toe, actually. If he > knew Peter could transform into a rat, and saw that this rat had a > toe missing (and all that could be found of Peter was, famously, his > finger) it might be prudent to check that the rat was what it seemed. > > Actually Amy, Dumbledore didn't know that Pettigrew was an Animagus > until Lupin told him at the end of PoA. Dumbledore said at the end > that he thought the Marauders' greatest achievement was not becoming > Animagi, but keeping it from him. Err, ghastrick, that was me, not poor Amy. IIRC, Amy was arguing as you did. What Dumbledore actually says is: "Sirius told me all about how they became Animagi last night. An extraordinary acheivement - not least, keeping it quiet from me." (PoA p. 312, UK hardback) This is like many Dumbledore comments - it can have two meanings. The surface one is that he doesn't know about the Maurauders. However, if you add the following imaginary afterthought: "Sirius told me all about how they became Animagi last night. An extraordinary acheivement - not least, keeping it quiet from me." [Why, it wasn't until after the Prank that I realised - extraordinary a group of teenagers could manage to hide it for so long] then you will see that the line can be read as *both* 'Dumbledore didn't know' and 'Dumbledore did know'. Sirius definitely thought Dumbledore did *not* know - and so would feel that he had to confess to Dumbledore - which covers the first sentence whether Dumbledore knew or not. The rest of Dumbledore's comments about 'remembering' the form Harry's patronus took can be read in the same ambiguous way. Pip From Edblanning at aol.com Fri Jun 14 12:13:55 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 08:13:55 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Spying game/ Snape and the TT Message-ID: <57.ce38c52.2a3b3803@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39842 Pip: > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > > > Now, returning to LOON mode, this is something where there *is* a > > right answer! > > > >Debbie: > > > > > > In the Potions class, Hermione offers to help Neville, and > Snape > > > cuts her off > > > > coldly with the comment that he didn't ask her to show off. > > > Hermione went > > > > pink and shut up. > > > > > Pip: > > > Errr... no, she doesn't. She helps Neville when he asks her by > > > hissing instructions at him out of the side of her mouth. I guess > > > this is an example of the way two people can read a scene in > totally > > > different ways - because to me the point here is that Snape > > > *doesn't* push it. He doesn't take House points off Gryffindor > here - > > > even though he shows later in the Boggart class that he was > perfectly > > > > > > > > > Since Debbie's gone to bed, I'll defend her :-) > > > > POA (UK PB, 96) > > > > "'Please, sir,' said Hermione, 'please, I could help Neville put it > right - ' > > 'I don't remember asking you to show off, Miss Granger,' said > Snape, coldly, > > and Hermione went as pink as Neville." > > Pip: > > (Since I'm now back from work, I'll defend myself [grin] ) > > You misunderstand me. I am referring to immediately *after* Hermione > goes pink, when Neville moans "Help me!", and the bit later in the > scene where > 'Hermione was muttering instructions to him [Neville]out of the > corner of her mouth, so Snape wouldn't see.' p. 97 > Snape refers to this in the boggart class scene, where he is > sarcastic about Neville being unable to do anything difficult 'unless > Miss Grainger is hissing instructions in his ear' p. 100 > > My point is that here is an example of Snape letting something go - > he was quite clearly aware of exactly what Hermione was doing, but > obviously didn't think it worth pursuing (probably because while > Neville was being given heavy hints, he was at least preparing the > potion himself). His behaviour in the Shack and the Hospital is quite > unlike his behaviour to Hermione elsewhere and, IMO, shows that it > was *important* she keep quiet. See #39662 for an analysis of when > and why he shuts her up in the shack and hospital. > > Eloise: And so now I'll defend *myself* ;-) Yes, I did misunderstand you. From where I'm sitting, it sounded like you were denying the incident Debbie referred to took place. Yes, of course what you quote *did* happen, but only afterwards. I understood 'No she doesn't', to refer to Hermione offering to help and then going pink and shutting up, rather than to simply the shutting up itself, which JKR says she did and as you point out, technically, she didn't. However....the fact that Snape knew after the event that Hermione had helped Neville does not necessarily mean that he was aware of it whilst she was doing it and thought it not worth pursuing. JKR specifically mentions that Hermione was muttering out of the corner of her mouth in order not to be detected. So...either he didn't know until the end result - and what other explanation could there be, other than that meddlesome Granger girl had whispered him help, or he did know, but rather than thinking it *not worth* pursuing, *chose* not to pursue it, appreciating the greater dramatic possibilities of letting them think they'd got away with it, let all the Gryffindors think they had got one over on him and then punish them for it. How much better to go for the dramatic climax, rather than get involved in a slanging match with a third year. I *do* understand why your theory says he shut her up in the Shack and the hospital wing - and I happen to think it's a very good theory. But in the classroom, there are other dynamics at work. We have discussed that Snape finds Hermione a disruptive element. She interrupts his flow and she shows off her knowledge when he wants to be the centre of attention himself. In this situation, he's achieved all he needs for the present: she's not getting attention except from Neville. *And* he can turn the situation to his advantage at the end of the lesson. In the Shack and the Hospital Wing, those dynamics aren't present. He's not being a teacher, he's acting in a completely different role as a member of Dumbledore's anti-Darkness team (with a healthy helping of personal revenge on the side). That in itself can explain his different behaviour. As can MAGIC DISHWASHER. I'm not saying you aren't right, just that I don't think it's the only possible explanation. ......................... Pip quotes me quoting her: > Pip: > > > Incidentally, how many of us have spotted that Dumbledore is an > > > Animagi? Any ideas on his transfigured form (a phoenix??) > > > > On what basis did you come to the conclusion that he was an > Animagus? > > However it has also been pointed out to me (when I made an animagus > > speculation about Harry) that JKR has said there will be no more > > animagi revealed. > > > > OTOH, perhaps that's a Dobby clue and he has been revealed in a way > > which we've (I've) missed. > > > > Eloise. > > who really *is* going to bed now. > > I'm basing it on the fact that when Hermione looked up the registered > Animagi, she said that there have only been seven *this century*. > (PoA p. 258 UK hardback). Dumbledore, of course, would have been > registered in the previous Century. Also on the fact he was the > Transfiguration teacher. > > > > Of course, if JKR says it's no go, it's no go. > Unless there's another revealing clue I haven't spotted [grin]. > Which is all good evidence. I have to say that in all honesty I think it would be very surprising if Dumbledore were *not* an Animagus. Perhaps there *is* something there that we've missed - or perhaps she wasn't quite telling the truth - or perhaps, he *is*, but won't be revealed as such. The latter might fill the criteria, I think. ......................... Snape and the TT Bard: > But when Fudge said: "They can't be in two places at once" then it > should have been Snape who got the light bulb off in his head. Of > course, he'd have had to prove they mis-used the TT and maybe he > wouldn't be able to. I think Snape's anger at this point stems from the fact that he knows Harry and Hermione have secured Sirius' escape, knows Hermione has the TT and suspects what they've done. I also think that Dumbledore's ' That will do Severus.............Unless you are suggesting that Harry and Hermione are able to be in two places at once' is a coded message - 'You're right. I know about it. Now shut up.' He gives in remarkably quickly at this point, doesn't he? Dumbledore's calm words evidently gave a very strong message that this was *not* to be pursued. I *think* that we have no indication that Snape has talked to Dumbledore at this point. He's been interviewed by Fudge and Dumbledore has been talking to Sirius and then Harry and Hermione, whilst Snape is apparently still with Fudge. Assuming for the moment (sorry, Pip) that they don't have a MAGIC DISHWASHER, then Severus genuinely doesn't know that Sirius is innocent, he wasn't earlier faking what he says about the fairy tale that Sirius has spun for Dumbledore, he genuinely thinks that Dumbledore has only just had his mind changed about Sirius and disagrees with him. But, he knows to shut up in front of Fudge if Dumbledore warns him. His loyalty is to Dumbledore, not Fudge. .................... I couldn't resist having some fun with Pip's imaginary scenario in which Snape forces Dumbledore's hand in obtaining Lupin's resignation: Pip: >**IMAGINARY Scenario One**. >After a year of Snape telling him Lupin cannot be trusted, Dumbledore >and Snape have a post-Sirius-Escape discussion which goes something >like > >Snape: "I have told you and told you that Lupin might be working with >Black, given you reasons why he might be a Death Eater [see Pippin's >excellent series of posts on Ever So Evil Lupin- #39822 is a good >summary], argued that he isn't reliable about taking his potions - >and look what happened tonight. He ran after Sirius without even >thinking it might be a good idea to warn you; didn't take his potion; >nearly killed Harry; and is currently wandering around the Forbidden >Forest in werewolf form. Even if you *still* believe he is on our >side he's too much of a loose cannon to have in Hogwarts." Eloise: "Don't you think that's a bit of a case of the cauldron calling the kettle Black, if you'll forgive the pun," Dumbldore answered, a twinkle naturally playing in his light blue eyes, "after all, Severus, what did you do? Did you tell me you were going after Lupin? Don't you think it a mite arrogant, competant multi-tasker though you are, to go after an unsafe werewolf (I don't claim to have your knowledge of potions, but couldn't you just have taken the potion *with* you, Severus?) and a mass murderer *alone*? It's just as well Sirius wasn't intent on killing Harry, isn't it? A lot of protection *you* were, after you'd let those children out-duel you", he tutted sadly. "And then there's the matter of the Map. Yes, Severus, the Map. The one you left on Lupin's desk, the one that I will not even know about until the end of the next book. The one that will fall into the hands of Voldemort's most loyal servant and allow him to murder his own father. Couldn't you just have pocketed it Severus? You *are* Head of Slytherin, are you not? "This isn't the first time you've gone off on your own...... erm.... bat, is it?" he continued, the corners of his mouth twitching in what Snape suspected was a suppressed smile, "Did you share your misgivings about Quirrell? Didn't I find you had tried to get past Fluffy yourself, rather than tell me that that troll was a diversion to allow Quirrell an attempt at stealing the Philosopher's Stone? Dear, dear, Severus. And you think *Remus* is a loose canon." Eloise (who is just having fun, is very well aware that there are theories as to why Snape didn't take the potion to Lupin and doesn't want to start all that up again. Especially not now that we've decided that Snape Is Competant) An acronym - an archaeological one, James - CIST (Competance Is Snape's Trademark) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Jun 14 13:17:47 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 13:17:47 -0000 Subject: Snape theory/Quirrell/Diary plotting/Elkin's DE post In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39843 Darrin Burnett wrote: > Darrin Burnett -- Two particular things against the theory: one, canon is very much opposed to people changing houses. McGonnagall's first-years speech especificly claims that once sorted, the house will be like their family for the next seven years. I suppose that you could develop some sort of theory to get off the loophole, but I can't even begin to imagine how, and in any case you'll need quite substantioal canon to back it up. Go for it, though; I'm not the one that's going to stop you from developing a new theory. I love both defending and sinking them. Second thing, I don't think Snape was ever a friend to James and co. Dumbledore has told Harry that the relaton Snape/James is very much like Harry/Draco, and if at some point in the past James and snape had been friends, the comparison would not stand. Dave said: > On another note -- Does it seem as strange to you as it does > to me how easy it was for V to brainwash Q? > > -- > Dave It seems that possesion was a very powerfull capability indeed, and the fsact that Voldemort doesn't speak bad of it gives it a lot of credit ("I only had still my power to enter other creatures bodies...", I think). It's some sort of Imperius that changes permanently the subject's thoughts, unless (I'd imagine) the subject is able to throw it off at the begining. Then again, professor Quirrell has never strucked me as a man of action. We have been told that he was a bookworm who knew the theory well evough, but that he had left for Albania to get first hand experience. If he was possesed before he could get much of that experience, maybe he was too green to protect himself against Voldemort, and was easily brought down. Nik's trun: > Marina said: > >I still think the events of CoS were planned by Diary!Voldemort, not > >Vapor!Voldemort, > > I have to agree with Marina. I unfortunately don't have my books here > with me, so I can't quote specific passages. If I correctly remember > Riddle's explanation to Harry about how he used Ginny, he says that > he was *very* interested in everything she had to say about Harry, > especially dealing with Voldemort's downfall. I had always assumed > that was because Diary!V had no knowledge of this. IIRC, Dumbledore > speculates that 16 yr old Tom must have captured an impression > (shadow? memory? What would you call that thing?) of himself in the > diary. I took this to mean that Diary!V had all the knowledge, > memories, etc. of Tom *up to that point in time*, but that he doesn't > have any connection to Voldemort after he is stored in the diary. That's one reason to think that the plan was *NOT* thought up by Diary!Voldemort, but by either Lucius himself or Vapor!Voldemort. The reason? Diary!V looks pretty much out of touch with the modern reality: doesn't know his future self had been beaten until Ginny tells him, etc. It looks like no-one had fed him any ink for quite a while. Thus, the plan couldn't have originated in him. The other two have both reason to plan it. Pip defended the reaons VapourV had and IIRC, Marina defended Lucius reasons. From the MAGIC DISHWASHER PoV, it looks like the typical distraction Voldemort might use while his own plans, after the defeat over the PS, get back into gear. And I agree that, while Lucius had some things to win (which is why he finally did give the diary over to Ginny), there was a lot he could loose, too. I don't think he would like Draco turned into a nice garden statue, nor into the modern version of Moaning Myrtle, so even if the gains were good, he was risking something nearly as valuable as his neck (not to speak of all the things he ended up loosing in the scheme, including an influent position in the school board and a lot of money, objects and respect). OTOH, I agree completely that Diary!Voldemort should have taken some time to read the 100 an eviloverlord should do. His most obvious error is right at the beggining, in fact: 7.When I've captured my adversary and he says, "Look, before you kill me, will you at least tell me what this is all about?" I'll say, "No." and shoot him. No, on second thought I'll shoot him then say "No." (taken from http://www.eviloverlord.com without persmission, but I think I've earned it. I've given them publicity enough. Besides I'm an evil overlord myself: don't pay for what you can steal ;-) ) Finally, Elkins made a great post on why the DEs missed Harry in the graveyard scene. Since the rules of the board don't admit putting one liners just to say "I agree", I put it here at the end of my keep-up post. Great theory, Elkins. Count with me to defend it if anyone attacks it. They may be bad, or they may be gray, but DEs aren't stupid, and they're not going to shoot at a boy who reflects AK with his skin alone. For all they know, the only one who can now AK him is Voldemort himself, thanks to the blood bonding, and they're not going to make the experiment. They're not there to risk their necks for the greater cause, after all. That's what the *good* guys do. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From Edblanning at aol.com Fri Jun 14 13:37:10 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 09:37:10 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape-Quirrelmort Conundrum/Time-Turner Message-ID: <129.12c0125b.2a3b4b86@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39844 Debbie: > Yes, the conversation in the forest is terribly ambiguous to us, but not, > apparently, to Quirrell. > Quirrell himself indicates to Harry when Harry confronts him at the Mirror > that he was well aware that Snape was not trying to bolster Quirrell's > loyalty to Voldemort. He discusses Snape's countercurse at the Quidditch > match, "trying to save you." And regarding the conversation in the > Forbidden > Forest, Quirrell tells Harry, "He was on to me by that time, trying to find > out how far I'd got. He suspected me all along. Tried to frighten me -- as > though he could, when I had Lord Voldemort on my side." That seems to me > to > be an unambiguous statement, which of course Voldemort heard behind the > turban. If Quirrell understood Snape's real meaning, then Voldemort > certainly did, too. So while Voldemort may have believed that Snape was > still acting as a double agent loyal to him at the beginning of PS/SS (and > I > do like the double agent theory), Quirrell's language, IMO, clearly > indicates > that he understood Snape to be working against Quirrell and that Quirrell > Eloise: You're right, of course. Even if he didn't understand the meaning at the time of the conversation, he seems to now. Although I think there's still a *little* ambiguity there. But of course it meshes entirely with Voldemort's knowing that (presumably) snape has 'left him for ever'. Alhough.....Voldemort does say, 'I *believe* [my emphasis] has left me for ever', which leaves a little leeway there, I think. Debbie: > > I also thought about the possibility (quite likely, IMO) that Snape did not > know that Voldemort was inside Quirrell's turban, and was trying to prevent > Quirrell from getting the Stone for himself. But I don't think that using > that premise I can reach the conclusion that Voldemort still thought Snape > Eloise: I don't know...If he made out he thought Quirrell was out for himself and that he wanted it for Voldemort....And Quirrell knows that he really knows that he's working for Voldemort. But there are still problems. But you know what intrigues me? Why couldn't Quirrell get the stone out of the mirror, if he wanted it for Voldemort and not himself? Debbie: > nape specifically asked Quirrell to meet him in the Forbidden > Forest, far from prying ears. Since Snape was interfering with Voldemort's > plans for Quirrell to kill Harry, this would have been a perfect time for > Voldemort to reveal himself and demand Snape's loyalty. I can't think of > any > reason why he does not, if he doesn't suspect Snape. This suggests to me > that Voldemort already had grave doubts about Snape's continued loyalty. I > Eloise: Well, come to that they could have paid a little visit to Lucius and all the other DEs over the hols and demanded loyalty from all of them. But he was still weak (ashamed to let anyone else see him?) and powerless. He may just have been biding his time until he regained his powers. And yes, I'm sure he *did* want to see how Snape was behaving. But...I've just thought of another 'but', all this comes from Quirrell, not Voldemort himself, doesn't it? Quirrell must have wanted to put himself in the best light in Voldemort's beady red eyes. I still think that Snape must have behaved in an incredibly circumspect way, given his suspicions. Debbie: And, yes, I've had a lot > of trouble with the idea that at the end of GoF Snape is sent out to > reestablish his double agent role, because I think that would be suicide. > He may be recruiting another mole in the Voldemort organization, but he > Eloise: Sure. I don't see him going to confront Voldemort himself, just yet. I assume he's infiltrating or information gathering. I'm sure the task must be Voldemort-related, as he is sent off immediately; Hagrid's mission to the giants waits until the holidays. I assume Dumbledore wants an immediate appraisal of the situation from someone who understands. I don't think the DEs know he's disloyal yet as he hasn't been bad-mouthed in Azkaban like Pettigrew. A DE who was known to have cut a deal would surely have attracted the highest opprobrium. But this is one thing to which we're sure (I hope!) to get an answer one way or another over the course of the rest of the series, so I think it's wise not to be too dogmatic. > But then again, I'm as suspicious as Moody. > Glad to hear it ;-) Eloise Who had a significant thought regarding the TT, whilst lying in bed listening to the Dawn Chorus this morning, but can't remember it now! I know it was to do with its implications for free will. If I stop thinking about it, maybe it will come back. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri Jun 14 13:40:39 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 13:40:39 -0000 Subject: Snape theory/Quirrell/Diary plotting/Elkin's DE post In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39845 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > The other two have both reason to plan it. Pip defended the reaons > VapourV had and IIRC, Marina defended Lucius reasons. From the MAGIC > DISHWASHER PoV, it looks like the typical distraction Voldemort might > use while his own plans, after the defeat over the PS, get back into > gear. And I agree that, while Lucius had some things to win (which is > why he finally did give the diary over to Ginny), there was a lot he > could loose, too. I don't think he would like Draco turned into a nice > garden statue, nor into the modern version of Moaning Myrtle, so even > if the gains were good, he was risking something nearly as valuable as > his neck I think Lucius believed that Draco was in no danger. He wasn't there the first time the Chamber was opened, and didn't know the details of what had happened. He didn't even know there was a basilisk involved. The legend says only that Salazar had left behind him an unspecified monster that will one day come out and clear all the Mudbloods out of Hogwarts. The implication is that it will *only* harm Mudbloods, leaving Hogwarts to the Purebloods who deserve it such as Draco. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From naama_gat at hotmail.com Fri Jun 14 15:16:51 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 15:16:51 -0000 Subject: of rats, toes, and wizards (was: The Spying Game) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39846 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > > What Dumbledore actually says is: > "Sirius told me all about how they became Animagi last night. An > extraordinary acheivement - not least, keeping it quiet from me." > (PoA p. 312, UK hardback) > > This is like many Dumbledore comments - it can have two meanings. The surface one is that he doesn't know about the Maurauders. However, ?f you add the following imaginary afterthought: > > "Sirius told me all about how they became Animagi last night. An > extraordinary acheivement - not least, keeping it quiet from me." > [Why, it wasn't until after the Prank that I realised - < extraordinary a group of teenagers could manage to hide it for so > then you will see that the line can be read as *both* 'Dumbledore > didn't know' and 'Dumbledore did know'. > But why would Dumbledore have kept quite about it then? I mean, you have quite a nice theory about why he has to keep silent now, but why keep silent *then*? According to your scenario, Dumbledore knows that four teenagers that are under his charge, are breaking the law while putting themselves and others at risk. Breaking the law, mind you, not just school rules. Hermione is shocked when she hears of this and Lupin agrees with her completely - it was very dangerous and foolhardy. While we can forgive a bunch of teenagers for foolhardiness, should we forgive a headmaster for allowing it to continue? If Dumbledore had known about the Marauders, I'm sure he would have put a stop to the whole thing immediately. He wouldn't have allowed a werewolf to wander about and he wouldn't have allowed students to perform illegal magic. Naama From pollux46 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 14 15:23:09 2002 From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 15:23:09 -0000 Subject: Coloured Flamingos (WAS: TBAY Sirius Black Is Ever So Evil) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39847 Eloise was getting excited over croquet: <<<<<<>>>>>>>>>> Yes! Exactly! That's the idea! Just think of the * fun* we could have! So pink is Snape `cos it clashes in such an alarmingly delightful way with his shadowy, onyx eyes. Sirius gets green because he's definitely destined to love a cabbage-- smelling Polyjuised girl. Who else then? Hmmm, this requires some thought. . . I said: > Some weeks ago Cindy proposed her brilliant Pillow Talk idea. > Unfortunately this obvious stroke of genius was unappreciated and > eventually discharged. Now, however I move for its re--examination. Eloise wrote: >Oh. So she's not Mrs Lestrange. >The move from Albus (think of the Latin) to Black, you mean? >So Sirius is into older women? *Seriously* older women? (If she's >Albus' >sister, presumably she doesn't need to polyjuice herself older.) Or >this is >all in the course of duty? Eeeeew!!! >Oops. Sorry. Got a bit ageist there. Obviously he's just stringing >her along, >yes? Poor Arabella! Yes. Well, I was actually hoping no?one would bring that tiny, petty, insignificant problem up, but since you mention it. Now, I did try to work out a plausible timeline, but unfortunately this does not seem to be possible even with the most extreme stretches. Phooey. Oh, but, look here now. If Telemachus can do it, so can Sirius, OK? You got a problem with that? Huh?(parenthetically, did you know that, Fenelon aside, according to another tradition Telemachus married not Circe (who was of course decades older than him), but Nausicaa, daughter of Alcinous, who bore him the twins Romulus and Remus? Though of course the most accepted version of this tale is that they were the sons of Mars and Rea Silvia. Interesting however that Telemachus is supposed to have left Ithaca because of a prophesy according to which he would bring about the death of Odysseus. Or maybe not.) >I never quite understood *why* the Sirius/Arabella partnership was >abandoned. >I never thought the objections were strong enough to completely >disprove it; >I rather warm to it, myself. I never quite got that myself. Was there perhaps some shattering post that I missed? I'm not quite sure I quite I buy the idea that Sirius was hanging out in Arabella's bedroom at the beginning of PoA, mind you. I do still object to that. But surely that doesn't disprove the rest of the theory, does it? Besides, think of the * evidence* we've collected here. We're talking whomping big can(n)onballs (well, you know, relatively speaking of course. . .) For starters you've got the all?mighty cabbage smell. *Never * forget the cabbage smell. Then there's the fact that Arabella absolutely * must* have a really, really * good* reason to be posing as a Muggle for all those long years. I mean she'd better have one. `Cos if she just did it for Harry out of the goodness of her heart,well, I, for one, will be really * deflated*. Pathetic, that's what it would be. Pathetic. And anyway, she's not even all that * nice* to Harry, is she? At least Harry doesn't seem to think so. (And, anyway, people acting so altruistically out of mere goodness of the heart would surely provide decent * cake*?) Finally, you've got Padfoot hanging out in the garden of some house in Magnolia Crescent. You can't tell me that was put there as simple garnish, can you? No,no, no, I refuse to believe it. I mean, the street's even got a * name*, for crying out loud. And Sirius needn't have actually * talked* to Arabella after all. He could simply have been staring longingly into her living room unwilling to show himself before he got a haircut (though mind you that Polujuise Potion doesn't sound to me like it's done much for * her* looks either.), or ... Huh. Oh. My. What did I just say? I just . . . Hang on a sec, guys. Rewind, rewind. . . doesn't see a reason to speak to her, names put there as more than garnish, Magnolia Crescent. Yes! * That* was it. Magnolia Crescent. * Magnolia* Crescent. Magnolia * Crescent*. Eloise, I think we've got ourselves another flamingo. How could I have been so * blind*? It wasn't Sirius who loved Arabella! It was Remus! I, mean, of * course*! It's all been all along right there in black and white . Duh! Right. Now, first of all look at the type of street we've got here. Is it a "Road"? No. Is it a "Close"? No. "Avenue", "Way", "Mews", "Lane", "Row", "Terrace", "Gardens" even? No. It's a "Crescent"! Why a Crescent? (incidentally a crescent is IMHO a rather silly place to go to if you're running away from home. It doesn't really * lead* anywhere.) Well, because, of course, as opposed to a full moon which is his Boggart, a sickle moon is naturally what Remus * loves* most. Therefore the crescent is a symbol of his love for the lady who resides in a street of this shape. So obvious really. And then there's the Magnolia. Well, I think we've all aware of JKR's rather unfortunate habit of naming women after flowers. Lily, Petunia, Pansy, Lavender and of course the all?encompassing Fleur. Why not a Magnolia as well? Lily and Magnolia, best friends since Hogwarts days. Very fitting, wouldn't you say? Notice too how Lupin is also named after a flower. How cute. And then there's that Arabella. Very significant too. Dead give away actually. How? Err, well, . . .(Don't laugh, Fiat!) Well, you see, it's Arabella, right? Which could become Bella, yes? And, err, you know, in the Disney motion picture, err, well, Belle, you know. . . loved the Beast. . . Err. Yes. So. OK, so you can take that or leave it. But still the name's got to mean something, hasn't it? Only the major child protagonists seem to get names that mean nothing whatsoever (despite being perfect for them anyway) and Arabella isn't a child nor has she been major up till now. Huh? What's that you say? It's just a name and names don't provide staunch Canon? Look, I don't know what book * you*'ve been reading, but I'm talking about Harry Potter here, ok? So. . .Where was I? . . .Oh, what * is* it again! Well? Get it out already! Huh? We don't know for sure that Arabella Figg lives in Magnolia Crescent? That's just where Harry ended up after he blew up Marge? Oh, please! What a feeble objection! Ok, then Mr Smart Guy. If she didn't live in No2 Magnolia Crescent, where * did* she live? It wasn't Privet Drive, Harry tells us it was a couple of streets away. Do * you* know of any other streets in the Surrey of the Potterverse? Ha! Didn't think so! And now for the colour co--ordination. Lets see. . .this flamingo should be. . .hmmm. . . why, purple of course! Like the magnolia. (though they also come in white and pink as well, I believe, but pink's been done (so * passe* now, really, one thinks. . .) and white. . . well, flamingos are supposed to be of passionate colouring surely! Otherwise, what's their point? >Eloise, who isn't sure about any of it either, but quite likes >shell-shocked >Neville and is very confused about whether she and Charis Julia >agree on this >(and are therefore *both* boring) or not. ;-) Charis Julia, who thinks they do, is very much afraid that they are, but would rather not talk about it ;--) From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 14 15:35:21 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 15:35:21 -0000 Subject: Of Polyjuice, Dishwashers and Werewolves Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39848 Much as I am enjoying all the Machievellian machinations of the Magic Dishwasher, I think I have found a theory-killer. If Dumbledore knew all about the Marauders' animagi forms, why, in the name of all wizardry, wouldn't he have told the ministry about Sirius during the first puppy-hunt, 12 years before? At that point he, like everyone else, wanted Sirius *found.* While the DISHWASHER defenders mull that over, here's another theory, a little easier to swallow than my last one, I hope. How do we know it was really Sirius that Hagrid met at Godric's Hollow? What if it was (gasp!) Peter Pettigrew, polyjuiced to be Sirius and riding Sirius' bike? That explains how he could get there in time to retrieve Voldemort's wand and robes without being noticed by Hagrid, assorted Muggle neighbors and policemen or the real Sirius, who could have arrieved after Hagrid had gone. Sirius himself never says anything about meeting Hagrid, or having the motorcycle. He only says he saw the Potter's bodies. I always wondered about that. Wouldn't James at least have been buried under the rubble? But if Sirius came later, he could have been watching while the bodies were removed. Additional canon point: Hagrid says that "Sirius" argued with him about taking Harry. "an' I told Black no, Dumbledore said Harry was ter go ter his aunt an' uncle's." Would the real Sirius Black have argued with orders from Dumbledore? I don't think so, not considering what Dumbledore says about young Crouch in GoF, "The real Moody would not have removed you from my sight after what happened tonight. The moment he took you, I knew..." Now all we have to do is explain why Pettigrew was polyjuiced in the first place. There's also a bit of Snape theory here which some of you have heard before, but I'm repeating it because it explains just why Snape was so hysterical in the Shack. Speculation: It seems to have been part of Voldemort's plan to frame Sirius for the deaths of the Potters. Now suppose that Voldemort has planted evidence pointing to Sirius as the spy where Dumbledore's agents can find it. Snape finds the evidence and reports it to Dumbledore, but James insists on using Sirius. Snape, who has a life debt to James, may even take the extraordinary and dangerous step of warning James himself. That part isn't necessary for my theory, though it would be a great dramatic scene, but it is essential that Snape understands that James has received his warning about the danger of trusting Sirius Black--and disregarded it. Voldemort conducts the raid on Godric's Hollow. He doesn't actually take Pettigrew with him when he executes the raid. Instead, he orders Pettigrew to arrive on the scene afterwards, *as Sirius* and fire the Dark Mark into the air as conspicuously as possible. So "Sirius" arrives on the motorcycle only to discover that things have gone rather wrong. He tries to get his hands on Harry, but Hagrid won't let him. Finally, "Sirius" gives the motorcycle to Hagrid to get rid of him, snatches up his master's robes and wand, turns himself into a rat and flees. But before he goes, he sends off an urgent owl with a letter, written in advance, to the Daily Prophet. The letter claims responsibility for the Potters' deaths in the name of the Death Eaters and Voldemort's chief lieutenant, Sirius Black. That accounts for Fudge's statement in the Three Broomsticks "Black was tired of his double-agent role, he was ready to declare his support openly for You-Know-Who, and he seems to have planned this for the moment of the Potters' death," and Ernie's "I 'eard 'e thought 'e'd be second-in-command once You-Know-'Oo 'ad taken over." The letter sets off the puppy-hunt. The Ministry canvas all of Black's associates. At this point Dumbledore must give his deposition about Sirius as the secret keeper, and if he had known it, he surely would have told them that Sirius is an animagus. No matter what Dumbledore thinks happened, protecting Sirius' secret can't be as important as finding him. Sirius has disappeared, looking for Pettigrew, and as usual he hasn't bothered to leave a note. Once again, he has not behaved like an innocent man. Sirius is captured and sent to Azkaban without a trial, so none of this ever comes out. No one ever realizes that the man Hagrid met at Godric's Hollow wasn't Sirius. Meanwhile, Snape believes the Potters ignored his advice. He has the sour satisfaction of knowing that if Potter had only taken heed of his warning, he'd be alive. He refers to this in the shack, "You'd have died like your father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black--" Snape never knew about the secret keeper switch, and he certainly didn't know that Sirius suggested it. So what Snape thinks he is hearing, when Hermione breathlessly suggests that there may have been a mistake, is that he, Severus Snape, is the one who made it. James must have switched secret keepers on Snape's information, and James and Lily are dead. That's why Snape gets hysterical, why he won't even listen. He's in furious denial that Sirius was framed because if he was, then he, Severus Snape, helped do it. He sent an innocent man to Azkaban. I don't think Dumbledore wanted Pettigrew to get away. It doesn't matter what Snape says to Fudge, because even if Snape believed Sirius' story he never saw Pettigrew himself. Dumbledore hasn't a hope of convincing anyone that Pettigrew is still alive on the word of a werewolf, an escaped convict and two thirteen year old wizards.The Ministry of Magic is not going to get off its bureaucratic butt just for that--he couldn't even get them to look for Bertha Jorkins. So why didn't Dumbledore launch a search on his own? Perhaps he did. Sirius is on the lam, and can't help, but suppose that Lupin has what many fictional werewolves possess: the tracking abilities of a wolf even when in human form. Did Dumbledore *order* Snape to let it slip about Lupin being a werewolf because he wanted Lupin free to leave immediately and hunt Pettigrew? Was Lupin's forced resignation a charade? Dumbledore knows, even before he hears the prediction, that Pettigrew may try to get back to Voldemort. He can't be sure it won't happen, and if it does, Voldemort may rise again. Snape may need to re-establish himself in his old master's confidence and for that there needs to be some evidence of a rift. Why not let Snape give out some information that Dumbledore supposedly wants quiet? (Note: for this theory it does not matter whether Dumbledore has suspicions of Lupin or not. Or whether Lupin is evil or not. But it does put Lupin conveniently on the scene for secret meetings with Voldemort in Albania. And if Lupin chased Pettigrew back to Voldemort instead of away...well! But we'll just have to see.) BTW, I wouldn't put too much stock in the fact that Dumbledore doesn't seem surprised when Harry tells him about Trelawney's prediction. One soon learns, in dealing with children, that one must never betray shock at anything they tell you. Dumbledore has had 100 years of practice at that. Pippin From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri Jun 14 15:41:12 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 15:41:12 -0000 Subject: Voldemort in COS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39849 OK, here's my understanding of why Dumbledore says what he does about Voldemort in COS. Pip wrote: > In CoS Dumbledore says: > "What interests me most is how Lord Voldemort managed to enchant > Ginny..." > > [This is a Voldemort plan] At this point Dumbledore knows (indeed has known since opening Creevey's camera) that a (the?) Basilisk is involved and that this requires a Parselmouth. Since what has been going on is plainly evil, Voldemort is the obvious suspect as the only other known Parselmouth is Harry. He is also concerned to reassure Ginny and her parents that she is not to blame and can probably sense that Harry is holding back information for fear that she might. So he throws out that line with the double aim of getting Harry to speak while showing the Weasleys that the stakes are very high. The question vapour! Voldemort or diary!Voldemort is meaningless to him at this time. > After he's been given the diary: > > "Older and wiser wizards than she [Ginny] have been hoodwinked by > Lord Voldemort" > > [This is still a Voldemort plan] Again his main concern is to reassure Ginny and her parents. The hoodwinking is not necessarily that she was a pawn in a master plan, just that she was deceived by Riddle in the diary. To be taken in by Riddle (as indeed Harry was) *is* to be hoodwinked by Lord Voldemort. Dumbledore wants to emphasise to Ginny that though she feels like a fool, she is in distinguished company. And to her parents that in the circumstances punishment is inappropriate. > "But this time, Lord Voldemort was acting through somebody else. By > means of this diary." (and Dumbledore is described as 'watching Mr. > Malfoy closely'). > > [This is a Voldemort plan. Voldemort had to give someone else orders > to do the actual work, but this is a Voldemort plan]. I take it Dumbledore means Riddle acting through Ginny. He watches Malfoy closely because he suspects he had something to do with it. He doesn't know (as we don't) whether the diary is a carefully calculated move in a wider game or just a piece of opportunism. Malfoy doesn't let him know, and nor, ultimately, do Dobby and Harry. My biggest difficulty with the whole diary plot is the scene in Flourish and Blott's. Are we to suppose that Malfoy hung suspiciously around the shops in Diagon Alley for the last week or so of the summer holidays on the off-chance that he would catch the Weasleys on their day there? I prefer the interpretation that he knew he could slip the diary onto *some* student, and got lucky with the Weasleys. How much of what he knew the diary would do, we don't know. Indeed, the diary itself is somewhat puzzling: Riddle says he created it to finish Slytherin's noble work, but he was easily distracted onto understanding and finishing off Harry, as well as ensuring his escape from the diary. If Malfoy's idea was to attack Harry (and I think Dobby isn't implying that: he thinks everyone is in danger but cares more about Harry) then the diary went off on the wrong track initially; if it was to release the Basilisk, he was in danger of finding he'd released a whole lot more. In short, if there was a coherent plan, there seems to have been no guarantee that Riddle would play ball with Malfoy (or old Voldemort); if there wasn't, well, there wasn't. David From naama_gat at hotmail.com Fri Jun 14 15:48:54 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 15:48:54 -0000 Subject: Snape theory/Quirrell/Diary plotting/Elkin's DE post In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39850 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > > Nik's trun: > > Marina said: > > >I still think the events of CoS were planned by Diary!Voldemort, not Vapor!Voldemort, > > > > I have to agree with Marina. I unfortunately don't have my books here with me, so I can't quote specific passages. If I correctly remember Riddle's explanation to Harry about how he used Ginny, he says that he was *very* interested in everything she had to say about Harry, especially dealing with Voldemort's downfall. I had always assumed that was because Diary!V had no knowledge of this. IIRC, Dumbledore speculates that 16 yr old Tom must have captured an impression (shadow? memory? What would you call that thing?) of himself in the diary. I took this to mean that Diary!V had all the knowledge, memories, etc. of Tom *up to that point in time*, but that he doesn't have any connection to Voldemort after he is stored in the >>>diary. > > That's one reason to think that the plan was *NOT* thought up by > Diary!Voldemort, but by either Lucius himself or Vapor!Voldemort. The reason? Diary!V looks pretty much out of touch with the modern reality: > doesn't know his future self had been beaten until Ginny tells him, > etc. It looks like no-one had fed him any ink for quite a while. > Thus, the plan couldn't have originated in him. I agree. However ... > > The other two have both reason to plan it. Pip defended the reaons > VapourV had and IIRC, Marina defended Lucius reasons. From the MAGIC DISHWASHER PoV, it looks like the typical distraction Voldemort might use while his own plans, after the defeat over the PS, get back >into gear. If Voldemort had a hand in this plot, why didn't he mention it in his graveyard speech? He describes his attempt to get the Philosophers' Stone via Quirrel. Then he says, "I returned to my hiding place far away ... yes, that was perhaps my darkest hour ... and I had given up hope, now, that any of my Death Eaters cared what had become of me... ." Then he continues "And then, not even a year ago, when I had almost abandoned hope, it happened at last ... a servant returned to me: Wormtail here ...", and he continues with the GoF plot reconstruction. Now, if he is telling the truth, then he had no contact with any DE between the end of PS and the end of PoA. Meaning, he had nothing to do with Lucius planting the Diary. OTOH, if he is lying, then for some reason he is telling the truth about Quirrel, and the truth about Wormatil, Bertha, Crouch, etc., but he is lying about the Diary plot. Why? It can't be because the plot failed (i.e., to save face), since he told his DEs of the PS plot which also failed. Is it to defend Lucius' part in the plot? But Lucius is present, right there, a first rank DE, Voldemort's slippery friend. Why not tell of how he has helped the Dark Lord in his time of need? Moreover, Voldemort says to Lucius: "I am *told* that you have not renounced the old ways... . Yet you never tried to find me, Lucius ... but might not your energies have been better directed towards finding and *aiding* your master?" [my emphasis] Clear, isn't it? Unless Voldemort is lying, then Lucius has done nothing to *aid* him during these last thirteen years. Again, why would he lie about it? If he wanted to keep the whole thing secret (and I really can't think of a reason for that), he could just have passed Lucius by. Or said something else. It seems a completely unnecessary lie (and surely there's an unspoken rule that fictional characters cannot be pathological liers, right? ). Naama And I agree that, while Lucius had some things to win (which is > why he finally did give the diary over to Ginny), there was a lot he > could loose, too. I don't think he would like Draco turned into a nice > garden statue, nor into the modern version of Moaning Myrtle, so even > if the gains were good, he was risking something nearly as valuable as > his neck (not to speak of all the things he ended up loosing in the > scheme, including an influent position in the school board and a lot of > money, objects and respect). > > OTOH, I agree completely that Diary!Voldemort should have taken some > time to read the 100 an eviloverlord should do. His most obvious error > is right at the beggining, in fact: > > 7.When I've captured my adversary and he says, "Look, before you kill > me, will you at least tell me what this is all about?" I'll say, "No." > and shoot him. No, on second thought I'll shoot him then say "No." > (taken from http://www.eviloverlord.com without persmission, but I > think I've earned it. I've given them publicity enough. Besides I'm an > evil overlord myself: don't pay for what you can steal ;-) ) > > Finally, Elkins made a great post on why the DEs missed Harry in the > graveyard scene. Since the rules of the board don't admit putting one > liners just to say "I agree", I put it here at the end of my keep-up > post. Great theory, Elkins. Count with me to defend it if anyone > attacks it. They may be bad, or they may be gray, but DEs aren't > stupid, and they're not going to shoot at a boy who reflects AK with > his skin alone. For all they know, the only one who can now AK him is > Voldemort himself, thanks to the blood bonding, and they're not going > to make the experiment. They're not there to risk their necks for the > greater cause, after all. That's what the *good* guys do. > > Hope that helps, > > Grey Wolf From marilyn at gtf.org Fri Jun 14 14:02:34 2002 From: marilyn at gtf.org (jedi102580) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:02:34 -0000 Subject: Snape-Quirrelmort Conundrum/Time-Turner In-Reply-To: <129.12c0125b.2a3b4b86@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39851 Eloise wrote: > But you know what intrigues me? Why couldn't Quirrell get the stone > out of the mirror, if he wanted it for Voldemort and not himself? This question was quite apparent on my last re-reading, when I noticed that Quirrell specifically says that he sees the stone in the mirror, that he's giving it to his master, but when Dumbledore describes the trick in the hospital wing later, he says that the reason those who want the stone for themselves won't be able to get it is that they will only see themselves with all the gold and invulnerability that it can give them, and not the stone itself. > Eloise > Who had a significant thought regarding the TT, whilst lying in bed > listening to the Dawn Chorus this morning, but can't remember it > now! I know it was to do with its implications for free will. If I > stop thinking about it, maybe it will come back. I was thinking about TT and free will last night as I was falling asleep! I don't know if we were thinking the same thing, but time travel definitely can be differently thought about depending on whether one believes in predestination/fate or in total free will. If someone believes in fate, then everything that we do is already decided and set in some way, and it is easy to see that any change that may or may not take place is fated to occur, and will or will not occur no matter what. Hermione is already in all three classes simultaneously because fate dictates that she is going to use the TT at the end of each of the first two classes. If someone decides that they intentionally want to see if they can screw with fate, i.e. Harry goes after the Invisibility Cloak, even though he thinks it was supposed to be picked up by Snape, as fate dictated the first time around, then would his memory suddenly change to fit with a history of the time in the SS without Snape sneaking in? Or is fate of such a nature as something would prevent Harry from being able to get the cloak? Hermione did grab him and try to stop it. Maybe that was fate! If one does not believe in fate, "changing" the past and future becomes somewhat more feasible, if not any easier to wrap your head around. :) -- marilyn From nmfry at hotmail.com Fri Jun 14 14:59:30 2002 From: nmfry at hotmail.com (N Fry) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 14:59:30 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Diary plotting Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39852 me: >Marina said: >I still think the events of CoS were planned by Diary!Voldemort, not >Vapor!Voldemort, > >I have to agree with Marina. I unfortunately don't have my books here with >me, so I can't quote specific passages. If I correctly remember Riddle's >explanation to Harry about how he used Ginny, he says that he was *very* >interested in everything she had to say about Harry, especially dealing >with Voldemort's downfall. I had always assumed that was because Diary!V >had no knowledge of this. IIRC, Dumbledore speculates that 16 yr old Tom >must have captured an impression (shadow? memory? What would you call that >thing?) of himself in the diary. I took this to mean that Diary!V had all >the knowledge, memories, etc. of Tom *up to that point in time*, but that >he doesn't >have any connection to Voldemort after he is stored in the diary. Grey Wolf: >That's one reason to think that the plan was *NOT* thought up by >Diary!Voldemort, but by either Lucius himself or Vapor!Voldemort. The >reason? Diary!V looks pretty much out of touch with the modern reality: >doesn't know his future self had been beaten until Ginny tells him, etc. It >looks like no-one had fed him any ink for quite a while. Thus, the plan >couldn't have originated in him. Opps. Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't make myself too clear there. What I meant was that I agreed that Vapor!V didn't plan the events. I didn't think that they were Diary!V's plans either. That's why I pointed out that Diary!V had no prior knowledge of what had happened. I think the plan originated from Lucius. IIRC, in the graveyard scene of GoF, he claims that he had no idea that Vapor!V had survived, but if he had heard any news that his master was in need of assistance, he would have come running. Didn't someone recently suggest that this may have been an act for Harry's benefit? (If not, it may have been one of the old archived posts that I read...) I don't believe that. I think that Lucius either didn't know, or he didn't want to know. No use risking yourself and all you've accomplished for a weakened master who may not recover. He may have heard rumors, so the events in CoS could have been a sort of insurance plan for if Voldemort did even return to power. If the rumors did end up being true, he had proof that he had still been indirectly working for Voldemort. Even better, if he claimed that he thought that Voldemort was destroyed, doesn't that make him look like an especially good little DE? He still loyally works for a deceased master who can't reward him for his actions. Marina wrote: >I think Lucius believed that Draco was in no danger. He wasn't there >the first time the Chamber was opened, and didn't know the details of >what had happened. He didn't even know there was a basilisk involved. >The legend says only that Salazar had left behind him an unspecified >monster that will one day come out and clear all the Mudbloods out of >Hogwarts. The implication is that it will *only* harm Mudbloods, >leaving Hogwarts to the Purebloods who deserve it such as Draco. That's what I should have added to my original post! Actually, I had intended to explain that I thought Lucius was acting on his own (without orders from Vapor!V), but I got distracted and didn't realize that I had forgotten to add that little detail until after I had sent it. Even though this has nothing to do with the various Voldie incarnations: Elkins said: >Honestly, it was not until I joined this list that it even occurred >to me that apparating might be an unusually difficult skill. Me too. I find that this list is making me consider *a lot* of things that never occurred to me when I first read the books. Between reading all of the new posts and trying to work my way through the archive, I've got plenty to think about! Kinda enjoyable, in a weird my-head-is-going-to-explode-from-all-of-this-new-info-in-such-a-short-time sort of way. ~ Nik (who is now even more paranoid about rereading her posts multiple times while hoping that her message completely reflects what she's trying to [unsuccessfully] say) _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 14 15:57:12 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 15:57:12 -0000 Subject: Voldemort in Cos Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39853 Pip asked: >>>Lucius risks a lot in CoS. There's a small risk to Draco, there's the risk that the diary can be provably traced back to him, he does gets sacked as a governor because he's pulled in every threat he can think of to get Dumbledore out of the way - all this while he's being raided by the MoM for possession of Dark Arts materials. Why? What can he get from this apart from revenge against the Weasley's? Would revenge be worth blowing the position he's managed to regain in the Stalemate?<<< Lucius is being raided by the MOM for possession of Dark Arts materials. When Dumbledore says jump, Fudge says "How high?" Arthur Weasley is about to pass the Muggle protection act. As if that half-giant who risked his son's life in the Forest wasn't bad enough, Dumbledore is talking about hiring a werewolf to teach Dark Arts if Lockhart doesn't work out. On top of that Lucius has just learned for sure that his erstwhile master is a vaporous fume, a wreck of a wizard who has been defeated once again by Harry Potter, who is a beacon of hope to the sort of folk who don't seem to know their place. People don't respect the Malfoy name any longer, Lucius sees his position is deteriorating and it's all down to Potter, Weasley and Dumbledore. Speculation: As Lucius is moving his cache of cool dark arts stuff from the chamber underneath the drawing room floor to a safer location, one his blabbermouth son doesn't know about, he comes across the diary. Voldemort didn't give it directly to him, but to one of his "most intimate friends. " Malfoy's father, perhaps. There is a note, instructing that it must never be opened while the Dark Lord lives. But Lucius has no fear of the Dark Lord any more. Lucius opens the diary. He and Tom hatch their plan, scribbling back and forth, unaware that they are being observed by Dobby, who has taught himself to read... PIp: >>>In CoS Dumbledore says: "What interests me most is how Lord Voldemort managed to enchant Ginny..."< Dumbledore has already made the connection between the original opening of the Chamber of Secrets fifty years before, and Lord Voldemort. He tells McGonagall this as they're wondering what happened to Colin. "The question is not *who* " Dumbledore knows that Lord Voldemort is the heir of Slytherin. Only the heir can open the Chamber of Secrets and summon the horror within, therefore whoever did this must have been controlled by Voldemort. Q.E.D. What is a mystery to Dumbledore at this point is how Voldemort could have managed it when he is a vaporous fume in Albania. The diary solves that mystery: it is a memory, something like an enhanced version of the talking portraits on the walls. It is entirely independent of its creator and inspiration. If the diary and Albania!Voldemort were still connected, then stabbing the diary would have destroyed Albania!Voldemort as well. Dumbledore uses Lord Voldemort's name, not Riddle's, for its shock value. Arthur is launching into a howmanytimeshaveItoldyou parental rant and Dumbledore wants both Ginny and her parents to understand immediately that she doesn't deserve to be blamed for what happened. I think it's going to prove very important that Voldemort doesn't have a clue that Harry's been in the Chamber. For one thing, Harry knows how to open the statue. That means he knows another way out besides the main entrance. That could be useful, particularly if Voldemort doesn't know that Harry knows it. Pippin From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Jun 14 16:25:43 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:25:43 -0000 Subject: MAGIC DISHWASHER: the re-cap (VERY LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39854 *Introduction* -------------- On Tuesday, 6/11/2002, Pipsqueak ("Pip") made an interesting post with the name "The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack (VERY LONG)". She has since publicly recognised that she didn't expect it to grow into one of the finest discussions the board has had lately, with about 100 messages fighting for and against it. It has grown so big, in fact, that it has defeated it's own purpose: to have a discussion were everyone could state their opinions. Thus, after Amanda brought this fact to my attention, I decided to get a post made on how it all started, hoping that those who haven't followed from the begining can catch up. *References* ------------ Pip's original post can be found at number #39662. For those on webview, it should be accesible from the "Up thread" link of this post, and for those who join us through mail, you can see it online at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/39662. The rest of the discussion can be found in the subsequent posts (follow the links on the botom of the first post for most of them), under names such as "The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack", "Voldemort's support in and pre-GOF", "Voldemorts Resurrection", "Problems with "The Spying Game"", "Two clarifications", and lately some of the "Time-Turner" posts (especially the ones done by myself), "Of Toes, rats and Wizards", and of course "MAGIC DISHWASHER", ranging from #39679 to #39843. Note: this post is nowhere near complete, since it will probably be out-dated by the time I finish it, it does not include all of the threads and Pip hasn't finished the theory (GoF awaits, Pip!). It's only intended as a guide. Note: this post is written by a defender of the theory. Even if it's not the case, it will state oppinions defended by MAGIC DISHWASHER as correct and attacks against it as incorrect. Don't feel offended. It would probably ask too much to my knowledge of English to keep a tone of fairness through all of the post, so I'm not going to try. Just remember that most of this is not "hard" canon, just interpretation (and "soft" canon, of course). * The Basis* ------------ In post #39662 Pip explains a new theory, with as much canon as she could pack into a 500 word essay, in which she explains how Dumbledore has been engineering most of the things that have been going on in HP books. The difference with previous Omnipotent!Dumbledore posts is that, in this case, Pip presents the theory with a belivable background: a terrorist war between Voldemort and Dumbledore which has been fought in an underhanded way, with information being the ultimate weapon and being obtained, not by unspecified magical means that only Dumbledore could use, but by spies and counterspies in both sides. She then uses this premise to work out what really was happening at the shack at the end of PoA. Snape arrived to the shack with a basic objective: have Harry save someone's (read: Peter's) life (stablishing a life debt to Harry) and then allowing that person to scape. For this plan to work out, however, he has to seem unaware of Peter's existance, or several things would go wrong for Dumbledores master plan, so it has to be Harry who takes the iniciative, not Snape himself, and it has to be done before someone utters the phrase "the rat is Wormtail aka Peter Pettigrew" in his presence. Thus, he goads Harry into attacking him (unfortunately, he also goads Hermione and Ron, and is effectively knocked out, which he didn't want), so Harry takes control. On a side note, you can read why Dumbledore (and through him, Snape) knew that Peter was secret keeper *and* an Animagus in post #39662. It's too long to repost it here. For this plan, Dumbledore (the master mind) was working on the premise that Black wanted to kill Peter, and that Harry would stop him, thus saving Peter's life. Dumbledore wasn't sure Black wasn't a DE and Snape was sure Black and Lupin were *both* DEs/traitors. Finally, it is explained why Snape's knock-out was not in the original plan: he was the backup sent by Dumbledore for this showdown (in the same line Dumbledore himself was in PS and the fenix/sorting_hat/ godric's_sword in CoS), and thus he was there to protect Harry from whatever attacked him... and to help Peter scape when no-one (not even Peter) was looking. *The Counter Attacks* --------------------- Pip's theory inmediatelly got *a lot* of attention from people wishing to explain where it had gone wrong. At first, attacks came from the expected places, but soon both Pip and me were running all over the place putting out bush fires: Note: the "potion" refers to the one used by Voldemort to regain his body * The life-debt can't be that important (Lana, 39679): Defense: Pip bases her theory on two facts: 1) Harry will be able to destroy Voldemort thanks to that life-debt 2) The potion Voldemort uses is fatally flawed You have to accept both for Dumbledore's plans to make sense *Snape's act is a little too well done (Porphyria, 39685): Defense: Snape pulls off an Oscar interpretation, and multitasks all the way. (Tautology) * Dumbledore isn't that bad: if he knew Sirius was innocent, he would have never allowed him to go to Azkaban (Marina, 39688) Defense: Dumbledore didn't know when Sirius was captured, only knew after the DEs started to mutter in Azkaban and info leaked out (possibly through Hagrid in CoS) * The real Mastermind is JKR, not Dumbledore (David, 39694) Defense: Yes, it is, but metathinking is not fair play and nontheless, "it still moves": JKR *is* the one behind everyhting we discuss, but the theories are supposed to get close to the logical thinking she used when creating the master plots, and this one does that. * The reembodiment of Voldemort is a catastroph and Dumbledore didn't want it (Pippin, 39697) Defense: In the Vapour form Voldemort is not only inmortal but capable of scheeming too. Dumbledore's plans to destroy him necesarily pass through re-emboding him, thus making him mortal. And to do that, Dumbledore arranges matters so that he uses a potion which is flawed. * Harry could not make choces in the shack, which is against JKRs modus operandi (Pippin, 39697) Defense: Harry is forced to grow up and make his own decisions all throught the scene (and metathinking is not fair play). * Voldemort is intelligent, not a stupid evil overlord (giving Harry chances by giving him back his wand for a duel against him) (Marina, 39702) Defense: Voldemort needs to demonstrate he can kill Harry single-hand, or at least make him flee. *Peter's scape and the potion are unrelated (Marina, 39700) Defense: Peter has a life debt to Harry: it's part of the flaws Dumbledore has engineered into the potion (together with Harry's blood) * If Dumbledore could cut down Voldemort's options until he chose a especific potion, he could cut *all* the options and leave him as a Vapour (Marina, 39710 and 39738) Defense: Dumbledore cannot cut all the options, only make the potion the most desirable to Voldemort. Then too, Dumbledore *wants* Voldemort to re-corporate, or else he will continue to be inmortal. * Voldemort is THE expert in magic in the world and knows everything about the potion, since it's a dark art. Dumbledore cannot be planing in winning him in his area of expertise. (Naama, 39731) Defense: The potion is not a dark art. Snape probably knows about it, but didn't know it was flawed until recently. Voldemort doesn't know at all (or wouldn't have used it), since it doesn't fall into his area: inmortality, and the potion only grants a mortal body (not inmortality). * Sending Harry to the Graveyard makes Dumbledore Evil, which is OoC and against the Plan (Naama, 39731) and Harry is too important to risk in the Graveyard scene (Marina, 39738) Defense 1: Dumbledore did not plan the Graveyard scene, and expected Harry to be safe in Hogwarts from it. Defense 2: Dumbledore has contingency plans for the situation in which Harry dies in one of the showdowns, which include the flawed potion. Still, Dumbledore tries to protect him by sending back-up (himself, Phoenix, Snape). The fact that Harry only had Cedric "Spare" Diggory gives credit to defense 1 (Dumbledore didn't see the Portkey!Cup twist). * There is only two ways to resurrect Voldemort (the stone and the potion). Defense: that we have been told of. There must be other ways (if there are not, Dumbledore didn''t have to plan as much, since Voldemort's options are already limited). Some of those other methods of attaining a body aren't flawed as the potion is, so Dumbledore makes them more difficult to use so that Voldemort uses the potion (see the epilogue, ahead). *Peter's scape doesn't help Dumbledore's plan, since it helps Voldemort regain it's body but menaces Harry the Teenager (Marina, 39749) Defense: it furthers both. Better have Peter life-debted to Harry than any other DE helping Voldemort with the potion. *Epilogue: the Origins of the Name* ----------------------------------- When Eloise asked in message 39823 whether the MAGIC DISHWASHER is an infringement of the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts Act ;-), I don't think she realised how close to the truth that wild guess was. MAGIC DISHWASHER (Mysterious Agendas Generate Interesting Conclusion: Dumbledore Is Secretly Hatching Ways to Assure Superiority for Harry in the Emerging Resolution) (Marina, post #39751) was born out of a humourous example I set to Marina when trying to explain that Dumbledore had indeed arranged the potion idea by restricting all the other resurrection options. One of these (absolutely false and certainly ridicule) options involved, in some unspecified way, an enchanted (or magical) dishwasher, so I explained that one of the members of the old gang (Arthur Weasley) was tasked to pass laws that would make them so unavailable that Voldemort would prefer the potion to the dishwasher option. As it is normally the case with silly examples, it stuck, and by the time I had started to work in an acronym, Marina had already worked one out that fits so perfectly I adopted it inmediately (for some reason, experience tells us that acronyms are best devised by an oponent to the theory. Maybe they can see the basis of it, while the defenders see only the attacks. Or maybe it's just casualty). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri Jun 14 17:07:48 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:07:48 -0000 Subject: Of Dishwashers and Animagi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39855 Pippin wrote: > Much as I am enjoying all the Machievellian machinations of the > Magic Dishwasher, I think I have found a theory-killer. If > Dumbledore knew all about the Marauders' animagi forms, why, > in the name of all wizardry, wouldn't he have told the ministry > about Sirius during the first puppy-hunt, 12 years before? At that > point he, like everyone else, wanted Sirius *found.* > > Pippin Excuse me, but how is that a theory killer? There is no direct relation between Sirius dog-form and MAGIC DISHWASHER that I can think off, and I just wrote the re-cap post! Nonetheless, the info you're talking about wasn't necessary to capture Sirius: they found him in the middle of a big crater, surronded by dead people, laughing. Is not as if he had tried to keep a low profile by hiding in his dog form. If Dumbledore didn't tell the MoM inmediately, he lost the opportunity, and since in the dishwasher we're talking about and underhanded war which will be won by the side that has the best bluffs and keeps more info from the other, I don't think Dumbledore would have volunteered the information at a point where half the ministry was working for or Imperioed by Voldemort's forces. At any rate, I'm with Amy when she says: > I've also long since lost track of how this connects to MAGIC > DISHWASHER, but I'm having fun with it anyway. > > Amy Naama wrote: > But why would Dumbledore have kept quite about [their animagi forms] > then? I mean, you have quite a nice theory about why he has to keep > silent now, but why keep silent *then*? According to your scenario, > Dumbledore knows that four teenagers that are under his charge, are > breaking the law while putting themselves and others at risk. > Breaking the law, mind you, not just school rules. Hermione is > shocked when she hears of this and Lupin agrees with her completely - > it was very dangerous and foolhardy. While we can forgive a bunch of > teenagers for foolhardiness, should we forgive a headmaster for > allowing it to continue? > > If Dumbledore had known about the Marauders, I'm sure he would have > put a stop to the whole thing immediately. He wouldn't have allowed a > werewolf to wander about and he wouldn't have allowed students to > perform illegal magic. > > Naama Why did Dumbledore allow a werewolf into the school? I'm sure it's much more illegal that than a few unregistered animagi (which seems to be a common crime). The animgi transformations allowed Lupin, for the first time, to have some real friends, which is what Dumbledore had been looking for all along when he admited him. Dumbledore trusted the boys' good sense, and knew they were not going to allow Lupin to harm someone. We also know that he is, at least, tolerant with the sort of petty crimes that happen at a boarding school (such as someone going to the kitchens to steal). The fact that James/ Harry uses a invisibility cape (which I don't think is too legal either) doesn't bother Dumbledore either, and there is not much difference between the animagi forms and the invisibility cape. What worries Hermione and Lupin is not the animagi, is having a werewolf roam the school, and we know that Sirius and James could control him on each on their own, so when both Sirius and James were both transformed I don't think there was that much danger. Anyway, I think Dumbledore actively searched for the headmaster position (or used it once he had got it) so he could select the boys he needed for his war against Voldemort (pick them from the tree, if all the apples in the basket are rotten, so to speak), and he could understand the possibilities of having the group as unregistered animgi. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Fri Jun 14 17:18:43 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:18:43 -0000 Subject: Dishwashers , Puppy hunts and werewolf excursions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39856 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > Much as I am enjoying all the Machievellian machinations of the > Magic Dishwasher, I think I have found a theory-killer. If > Dumbledore knew all about the Marauders' animagi forms, why, > in the name of all wizardry, wouldn't he have told the ministry > about Sirius during the first puppy-hunt, 12 years before? At that > point he, like everyone else, wanted Sirius *found.* > > Pippin Oooh, that's easy [hoping Pippin doesn't see the sudden flash of panic in my eyes :-)] The Potters are killed at night. I believe Dumbledore did not have any advance warning that the Secret had been betrayed - Voldemort, knowing there were leaks, may well have gone to Godrics Hollow immediately Pettigrew betrayed them. Dumbledore finds out the Potters are dead, Harry is alive and Voldemort is a wisp of floating noxious gas by some means we don't yet know about. Knowing that Harry can only be protected from Voldemort by deep magic involving blood relations, he immediately details Hagrid to get Harry, then finds out who Harry's surviving relatives are, and starts preparing the Privet Drive defenses. Preparing the Privet Drive defenses takes the rest of the night and the following day - in fact, it takes till midnight the next day (see PS/SS Chapter One). There's a lot to be done, including arranging Mrs Figg's cover. Meanwhile, according to Madame Rosmerta, "The Ministry of Magic caught up with Black the next day!" (PoA p. 155 UK hardback) Fudge corrects her by telling her it was Pettigrew - but doesn't disagree with the timetable. The implication is that Pettigrew caught up with Black the morning or afternoon after Harry's parents were killed, when Hagrid was still doing a motorbike flight from the West Country to the South East (and since he took over 24 hours to do it, I assume he hid during daylight to avoid 'Muggles amazed by Flying Motorbike' headlines). There's another implication from something Hagrid says: "Never occurred to ter me what he [Sirius Black] was doin' there. I didn' know he'd bin Lily an' James' Secret Keeper" (p. 153 PoA) - which is that Dumbledore was giving all his concentration to keeping the Last of the Potters safe and hadn't yet considered the need to find and expose their betrayer. He certainly hadn't considered the need to warn Hagrid about Sirius Black. By the time Dumbledore had finished arranging the Safety Net for Harry, Black had been caught anyway, and the puppy-hunt was over. Black was off to Azkaban - exposing him as an illegal animagi would also involve exposing the genuinely heroic James and the supposedly heroic Pettigrew as law-breakers. Before you ask why he didn't tell the Ministry Sirius was an Animagi *anyway*, given that that was how Black escaped, the answer is probably that since Dementors are known to suck magic powers from you Dumbledore assumed it didn't matter exactly what powers Black had. "Dementors are supposed to drain a wizard of his powers if he is left with them too long. (Lupin, PoA p. 140). By the time of the second puppy-hunt, of course, Dumbledore had heard the rumours that Pettigrew was the real secret keeper... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Naama says: > But why would Dumbledore have kept quite about it [the Maurauders > being Animagi] then? I mean, you have quite a nice theory about why > he has to keep silent now, but why keep silent *then*? According to > your scenario, Dumbledore knows that four teenagers that are under > his charge, are breaking the law while putting themselves and > others at risk. Breaking the law, mind you, not just school rules. My theory means that Dumbledore doesn't find out about the Maurauders until *after* the Prank. I have always assumed the 'werewolf' excursions stopped after the Prank. I don't think there's any canon evidence either way; but I would assume that after the near-death of a student, James and Sirius would have been very strictly forbidden, on pain of expulsion, to go near Lupin in his werewolf state. There would then have been no real risk in the Maurauders being Animagi. Leaving aside the question of how much Dumbledore really cares about breaking laws per se; I suspect that it would be very much in his philosophy to let law-breakers decide for themselves whether to admit to 'harmless' law-breaking - he would leave it up to the Maurauders to decide whether to register. Further, considering that the Maurauders seem to have graduated straight into the hottest part of the Voldemort-Potter war, he might well have thought that being *unregistered* Animagi might end up saving their lives someday. Which it does - one for good ends, and one for bad ends. Pip From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Fri Jun 14 17:35:46 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 18:35:46 +0100 Subject: Severus Snape and The Incident References: Message-ID: <00ab01c213c9$ea73b140$429f5651@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 39857 Firstly, It seems that poor Remus gets picked on periodically. Having watched various strands intermittently there seem to be two camps for each major adult character with flights of facny of varying degrees being inflicted - as patience with the arrival of book 5 grows ever thinner. I like the theory about jumping houses (like jumping ship - but not to LOLLIPOPS * g *) and it would give yet another motive to our complicated, tormented, evil (if you don't like him) attractively dangerous (if you do) Severus Snape. Much detailed discussion has taken place about The Prank and if there was something earlier e.g. The Incident, say, a house move *might* not be out of the question, given Snape's gift for potions. There may be no canonical evidence for house changing but it can't be completely unknown - just out of Harry's sphere of knowledge. (I am always puzzled why Neville - a gifted herbology student - was placed in Gryffindor. I know his Mum and Dad were attached but.....) Felicia (so bored with waiting she is reading Der Stein der Weisen) SNIP >There. I am not ready to jump on the "Snape is a good guy all along" > routine. For JKR to do that now would be to sell out the character > that has long been one of the better-drawn ones in the series. > > I see Snape as a mostly evil man who keeps being brought back by > strands of goodness. His original friendship with the Potters, his > debt to James, Dumbledore's trust, all keep yanking him back from > where he really wants to be. > > Darrin Burnett -- > How did Lupin become the bad guy again? > > > > > > > ________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 rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri Jun 14 17:39:07 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:39:07 -0000 Subject: Of Dishwashers and Animagi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39858 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > If Dumbledore had known about the Marauders, I'm sure he would have > > put a stop to the whole thing immediately. He wouldn't have allowed a > > werewolf to wander about and he wouldn't have allowed students to > > perform illegal magic. > > > > Naama > > Why did Dumbledore allow a werewolf into the school? I'm sure it's much > more illegal that than a few unregistered animagi (which seems to be a > common crime). There's no indication that letting a werewolf into the school is illegal at all. Dumbledore kept it secret because he didn't want Remus ostracized, and because he didn't want the parents of the other kids to panic. If it's legal for a werewolf to teach, I don't see why it would be illegal for him to attend school. But Lupin was admitted on the condition that he stay put in the Shrieking Shack at full moon. He had no business breaking that condition, and if Dumbledore knew about it, he had no business allowing it. > The animgi transformations allowed Lupin, for the first > time, to have some real friends, which is what Dumbledore had been > looking for all along when he admited him. > > Dumbledore trusted the boys' good sense, and knew they were not going > to allow Lupin to harm someone. We also know that he is, at least, > tolerant with the sort of petty crimes that happen at a boarding school > (such as someone going to the kitchens to steal). Having friends is one thing. Knowingly endangering innocent people is something else entirely. It's not a petty crime. Lupin himself admits that they had several close calls during their Hogsmeade outings, and that their behavior was wrong. Then again, the whole Dishwasher theory seems to depend on Dumbledore being criminally cavalier about the lives of innocent bystanders. If he's willing to unleash a reincarnated Voldemort on the general population while he waits for Harry to grow up, then I suppose the risk of Lupin munching an occasional pedestrian in Hogsmeade isn't going to faze him either. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From naama_gat at hotmail.com Fri Jun 14 19:06:16 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 19:06:16 -0000 Subject: Dishwashers , Puppy hunts and werewolf excursions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39859 > Naama says: > > But why would Dumbledore have kept quite about it [the Maurauders > > being Animagi] then? I mean, you have quite a nice theory about why > > he has to keep silent now, but why keep silent *then*? According >>to your scenario, Dumbledore knows that four teenagers that are >>under his charge, are breaking the law while putting themselves and >> others at risk. Breaking the law, mind you, not just school >>rules. > > My theory means that Dumbledore doesn't find out about the >Maurauders until *after* the Prank. > > I have always assumed the 'werewolf' excursions stopped after the > Prank. I don't think there's any canon evidence either way; but I > would assume that after the near-death of a student, James and Sirius would have been very strictly forbidden, on pain of expulsion, to go near Lupin in his werewolf state. There would then have been no >real risk in the Maurauders being Animagi. > Yes, if Dumbledore had found out that James and Sirius hang around Transformed!Lupin then he would most certainly have forbidden them to do that. But ... exactly how could Dumbledore forbid them to go near Transformed!Lupin without revealing that he knows about their being Animagi? It would have been pretty weak, wouldn't it, to tell clever 17 year olds that they mustn't go near werewolves. Like, duh, don't they know that already? Nobody in their right senses would go near a werewolf in human form. Can Dumbledore really make it believable that that's what he thinks they have been doing? Hanging around Lupin as humans? Can he make it believable that he thinks they can be that stupid? (and WHY should he, anyway?!) If Dumbledore found out that they were all illegal Animagi, running about with a werewolf, he would have probably expelled them. Being the great second-chance-give that he is, he may have decided against that. But, in that case, he would have made it extremely clear to them how wrong they have been. He would have particularly made Lupin see how dangerously he had been behaving. > Leaving aside the question of how much Dumbledore really cares >about breaking laws per se; I suspect that it would be very much in >his philosophy to let law-breakers decide for themselves whether to >admit to 'harmless' law-breaking - he would leave it up to the >Maurauders to decide whether to register. > Dumbledore may not be a stickler for rules per se, but I don't see him allowing his students to break the law for the sheer fun of it. Naama From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri Jun 14 19:06:29 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 19:06:29 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Two Hedgehogs For The Price Of One Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39860 OK, I am completely Shocked! Stunned! Slack-jawed, even! I just checked the Ever So Evil Poll, and only *two people* have voted that Moody will be Ever So Evil. And I'm one of those two people! That means that the percentage of list membership that believes in Evil!Moody is . . . .024606299212598425196850393700787e-4. What *is* that, anyway? That's not even a *number,* is it? Sheez! Twice as many people voted for *Evil!Winky* than Evil! Moody! What is going *on* here? There's only one possible explanation for this. Evil!Moody is *misunderstood*! People just aren't following the theory and appreciating its rock-solid canon foundation, not to mention its inherent and indisputable Banginess. Yes, that's what's wrong. If JKR trots out Evil!Moody in OoP, she is well on her way to having fooled 4063 people! Well, let's bring that number *down* a bit, shall we? That's right. It is *way* past time for an Evil!Moody membership drive. Let's review the mystery that is Alastor Moody. Now we have to be careful to separate Fake Moody from Real Moody. The actions of Crouch Jr. as Fake Moody have little or no bearing on whether Real Moody is Ever So Evil. JKR has said Real Moody will be in Book 5 and will be even more cool, or words to that effect. That's our starting point. What do we know about Real Moody? Not much, actually. Bill tells us that Moody "was a great wizard in his time" and Charlie adds that Moody "is an old friend of Dumbledore's." Charlie explains that Moody was "one of the best" Aurors, and "[half] the cells in Azkaban are full because of him. He made himself loads of enemies, though . . . the families of people he caught, mainly . . . and I heard he's been getting really paranoid in his old age. Doesn't trust anyone anymore." Moody's reputation for paranoia has mushroomed to the point that others have long since stopped taking his suspicions seriously: "'Arthur, you know Mad-Eye,' said Mr. Diggory's head, rolling its eyes again. 'Someone creeping into his yard in the dead of night? More likely there's a very shell-shocked cat wandering around somewhere, covered in potato peelings. But if the Improper Use of Magic lot get their hands on Mad-Eye, he's had it ? think of his record ? we've got to get him off on a minor charge, something in your department ? what are exploding dustbins worth.'" In fact, Charlie explains that Moody's exaggerated fear of Dark wizards persists to this day: "[Moody] sees Dark Wizards everywhere." Well, why would Moody even *be* so afraid of Dark Wizards these days? That's odd, isn't it? Voldemort has been gone for *14 years*, and Moody is *still* worried about being attacked by the family member of a Dark Wizard? He's not even an active Auror ? he's retired. Moody doesn't get *over* this at some point? Nope, apparently not. Instead, his paranoia actually grows to the point that his admirers like Arthur Weasley won't even *consider* the possibility that someone might attack Moody. When Mr. Diggory is recounting (Fake) Moody's account of the attack, "Mr. Weasley groaned." He doesn't even *ask* if Moody is OK. No, Arthur is only worried about how to manage this mini-crisis. Isn't that a bit *strange*? If Moody was this great Dark Wizard catcher, it is rather odd that he is being treated with disrespect bordering on *contempt* by his former colleagues. The fact that absolutely *no one* credits Moody's suspicions suggests to me that no one else thinks there's *any chance* that some Dark wizard or relative of one would attack Moody. But Moody's paranoia is not even the biggest mystery. Doesn't anyone feel a tension between the Moody we see in the Pensieve compared to the Moody Sirius describes in "Padfoot Returns"? Sirius says, "I'll say this for Moody, though, he never killed if he could help it. Always brought people in alive where possible. He was tough, but he never descended to the level of the Death Eaters." So Moody is tough but merciful, is he? Moody is honorable and fair- minded, is that right, Sirius? Then how do we account for Moody's behavior in the Pensieve? That Pensieve scene with Karkaroff is just plain weird. It occurs after the fall of Voldemort, as Karkaroff tells us that "I know that the Ministry is trying to ? to round up the last of the Dark Lord's supporters." This suggests that there have already been a number of arrests, but there are still a few Big Fish in the sea. Enter Karkaroff. Moody is right there, fully aware that Karkaroff is about to hand over "important information." And what is Moody's very first line in this scene? "Filth." Moody is not happy about Karkaroff's spilling his guts. Not at all. Moody was "looking down upon Karkaroff, [his eyes] were narrowed in intense dislike. . . . Let's hear his information, I say, and throw him straight back to the dementors." Gee, that doesn't sound honorable or fair-minded at all. Hardly the words of a man who would never descend to the level of the DEs. After all, that is *exactly* what Moody is advocating in that scene ? that Crouch sink to the level of the DEs. So we have a number of mysteries surrounding Moody. He is fearful of family members of Dark Wizards 14 years after Voldemort's fall ? even though Moody is a strong and tough Auror who should be able to defend himself against the families of the people he sent to Azkaban. He is supposedly honorable ? so honorable that he avoids using Unforgivable Curses -- but he advocates breaking a plea deal with Karkaroff for no apparent reason. Something else *must* be going on here. Let's go back to that Pensieve scene with Karkaroff. Moody is there, and he has a lot to say, doesn't he? He is sneering, muttering, complaining. But what does JKR have Moody do when Karkaroff finally fingers Rookwood in the Pensieve? Nothing. No sneering. No glaring. No gasping. Rookwood is Big news in the Pensieve, and Moody has no reaction at all. Oh, Moody has a reaction to lots of others Karkaroff names ? Moody just won't shut up in the Pensieve scenes. He reacts to Karkaroff, Dolohov, Rosier, Bagman, Snape. It is not until Karkaroff fingers *Rookwood* that Moody suddenly goes quiet. Also, look at Moody's dialogue. Moody arrested Karkaroff in the first place, and now Karkaroff is *helping* the Ministry in the Pensieve, isn't he? Moody should be pleased to have the chance to bring down more evil DEs, right? The Ministry is trying to round up the last of Voldemort's supporters, right Moody? Yet Moody is unbelievably hostile to Karkaroff's efforts. And this just doesn't add up *at all.* When the government has the goods on one suspect (hypothetically speaking, perhaps someone really insignificant like a young intern) and the government knows that this Small Fish has information that will bring down another really Big Fish (hypothetically speaking, perhaps the Leader Of The Free World), the government is *delighted* to cut a deal and trade the Small Fish for the Big Fish. Moody shouldn't be sneering at Karkaroff at all. Moody should be *jumping out of his seat* to have a chance to bring down a Really Big Fish ? Rookwood. And make no mistake ? Rookwood is a Really Big Fish. "Harry could tell that, this time, Karkaroff had struck gold. The watching crowd was all murmuring together." The crowd didn't make a peep when Karkaroff mentioned Dolohov and Rosier. Only Rookwood's name provoked a reaction. So what is *really* going on with Moody? He is Ever So Evil To The Core, that's what! Here's how it works. Let's make Moody an Auror but also a DE back before Voldemort fell. Moody is a spy for Voldemort, but Voldemort does not know this. The reason Voldemort does not know this is Rookwood. Secret DE Rookwood, from the Department of *Mysteries*, has decided to launch a little deep cover side operation unbeknownst to Voldemort. Rookwood recruits Moody to be a DE, and Moody continues his Auror function, but is really working indirectly for Voldemort through Rookwood. But why would Rookwood have a secret operation going? Why not just tell Voldemort outright that Rookwood has lined up famous Auror Moody? Well, sometimes the most obvious answer is also the right answer: Rookwood is Supremely Ever So Evil his own self! Rookwood wants to keep his little network of spies a complete secret *even from Voldemort*. Rookwood is about as disloyal as they come. He is just *waiting* for the chance to overthrow Voldemort, and he wants to have a network of his own Loyal Evil Underlings already in place. Oh, Rookwood is one *smart* little operative. He's straddling the fence himself, perfectly positioned to make a move in any direction. When the time is right to strike against Voldemort, he will. If he opts not to make his Big Power Play, he can go to Voldemort and reveal this successful covert operation he has thoughtfully launched for the benefit of his Evil Master, complete with a list of the many ways operatives like Moody have been helpful all along ? thereby securing for himself honor above all other DEs. Rookwood knows a win-win when he sees one. Anyway, Moody's secret DE role is to fulfill his function as an Auror, passing information on to the DEs to the extent he can. When his Auror duties require him to apprehend DEs, he does, because to do otherwise would arouse suspicion. Moody's double-agent role is the *real* reason Moody has that curious policy of not killing DEs unless he could help it. No, Moody doesn't want to kill DEs, because he is on their team. Bringing them in alive to let them talk their way out of Azkaban claiming Imperius is much better, you see. That, by the way, is the *real* reason that Moody is so very angry with Karkaroff in the Pensieve. Karkaroff is not following the script. He is supposed to claim Imperius. He is not supposed to cut a deal and cough up *names* like that. No, this is not a good idea, and Moody knows it. "Let's hear his information and send him straight back to the dementors." Yeah. Moody knows what Karkaroff is *supposed* to say to get out of Azkaban, and Moody doesn't want Karkaroff to get *any* benefit from messing up the plans like this. Now, as Moody goes about his daily functions as an Auror, some of the high-level DEs ? the ones who are close to Rookwood -- know Moody is really on their team, and they agree to be apprehended without a struggle if cornered by Moody. Travers, Mulciber, Dolohov ? they all got the word about Moody being corrupted and they went along quietly. But that Evan Rosier. Rosier was . . . well . . . he was just plain crazy! Rosier didn't want to spend a minute in Azkaban, and he figured he could get away by taking a shot at Moody. This was a mistake. Moody was *forced* to blast Rosier, what with Rosier aiming right for Moody's *nose* like that. Rosier was playing the hero, so Moody had no choice. Anyway, Rookwood is arrested on the strength of Karkaroff's information, and things quiet down in the wizarding world. Moody figures he is a lucky man (except for the leg and eye part). The one man who could finger Moody as a DE is Rookwood, who is rotting in Azkaban. Moody gets to be a famous auror and live a quiet retirement. No one knows Moody was a secret DE. Just Rookwood, and Rookwood isn't talking. Or is he? Moody doesn't know *what* Rookwood is mumbling about in his sleep. Moody is an Auror ? he *knows* the Azkaban prisoners talk in their sleep. Heck, Moody himself might have received hot tips in exactly this fashion. The possibility that Rookwood is mumbling about Moody makes him more than a little bit jumpy and paranoid. Besides, Moody knows Rookwood was building this network of covert operatives, but Moody doesn't know how big it was. It might have been *huge.* Moody never knows if the next knock on the door is the butterbeer delivery man, or a disgruntled psycho DE bearing a grudge against secret DEs who got off, or even a DE who wants to rub out the rest of Rookwood's network. Oh, this scenario makes a *lot* more sense than the one JKR has been feeding us. No, Moody isn't worried about the families of the people he arrested. Puh-leeze. No, Moody is *terrified* that Rookwood told someone else about their little arrangement. Or worse, that Rookwood had cohorts who were even *more* deeply undercover than Moody. Powerful spies. Powerful spies who could sneak up on Moody. After all, Moody has no clue just how deep Rookwood's network runs. But the one thing Moody does know is that if someone is in Rookwood's network, that someone is Dangerous. Yeah, you bet Moody is paranoid. The only thing Moody *isn't* afraid of is his own shadow, if you ask me. But there's just one little problem? The whole premise of GoF is that Moody is a Good Wizard, an ally of Dumbledore. How could Moody possibly be a Dark Wizard? The *whole plot* of GoF doesn't make sense if Moody is a DE, right? Voldemort hatches a plan to kidnap Moody and assume his identity, and Voldemort wouldn't do that if Moody were already a DE. Not even Voldemort is so dumb that he doesn't know who is on his own team, right? Crouch Jr. and Wormtail have to overpower Moody and impersonate him for a year to get kidnap Harry and restore Voldemort. If Moody were Ever So Evil, then why go to all this trouble? Oh, that's *easy.* Voldemort (and Wormtail and Crouch Jr.) have no clue that Moody is really Evil and part of Rookwood's secret operation. That's why it was called a *secret* operation. So in GoF, we have Voldemort, Pettigrew and Crouch Jr. overpowering Real Moody, not knowing that he is a DE. Crouch Jr. keeps Moody alive and questions him, but never puts the right question to Moody: "By the way, are you a DE just like me?" No, it just never comes up. Savor the irony there! And there's more. Moody doesn't get much attention from JKR in his final scene at the staff table, does he? "The real Mad-Eye Moody was at the staff table now, his wooden leg and magical eye back in place. He was extremely twitchy, jumping every time someone spoke to him. Harry couldn't blame him; Moody's fear of attack was bound to have been increased by his ten-month imprisonment in his own trunk." Nice guess, Harry. No, it isn't the imprisonment in his trunk that got to Moody there. It is the knowledge that his enemies are *everywhere*. He has to fear Voldemort's supporters, who already attacked him once because they think Moody is Good. He has to fear MoM, who might learn at any moment that Moody is Evil. He knows Voldemort is back, and his supporters, the dementors, are guarding Rookwood. And Moody has no idea how Rookwood is feeling about anything these days? Moody doesn't know which way to turn, so he just sits there, twitching. Finally, JKR actually forshadows Real Moody's evilness, right out where we can see it. Oh, she just loves to do that, doesn't she? Harry's name comes out of the Goblet, and Fake Moody comes right in and tells us a big part of the plot twist. Well, she foreshadows Ever So Evil Real Moody, too: "'You must understand,' said Karkaroff hurriedly, 'that He-Who-Must- Not-Be-Named operated always in the greatest secrecy . . . He preferred that we . . . never knew the names of every one of our fellows ? He alone knew exactly who we all were ? ' 'Which was a wise move, wasn't it, as it prevented someone like you, Karkaroff, from turning all of them in.'" Oooh, that is chilling if Moody is a DE, isn't it? Sure, Karkaroff *thinks* that Voldemort knows everyone who is working for him, but Karkaroff ? a small fish ? is *wrong* about that, isn't he? Ever So Evil Moody with Supremely Ever So Evil Rookwood tossed in for nothing. Such a deal! Cindy *************** For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin20Files/hypoth eticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From bard7696 at aol.com Fri Jun 14 16:51:23 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:51:23 -0000 Subject: Snape theory/Quirrell/Diary plotting/Elkin's DE post In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39861 Grey Wolf wrote: > Two particular things against the theory: one, canon is very much > opposed to people changing houses. McGonnagall's first-years speech > especificly claims that once sorted, the house will be like their > family for the next seven years. I suppose that you could develop some > sort of theory to get off the loophole, but I can't even begin to > imagine how, and in any case you'll need quite substantioal canon to > back it up. Go for it, though; I'm not the one that's going to stop you > from developing a new theory. I love both defending and sinking them. > > Second thing, I don't think Snape was ever a friend to James and co. > Dumbledore has told Harry that the relaton Snape/James is very much > like Harry/Draco, and if at some point in the past James and snape had > been friends, the comparison would not stand. > I'll take the second one first. Dumbledore told Harry about Snape and his father hating each other in his first-year (toward the end of PS/SS). It is entirely possible there is more to the story. After all, Dumbledore gave Harry a very stripped-down version of James saving Snape's life. Now, as to the first, I don't think canon excludes switching houses for drastic reasons. Like family for the next seven years is strong language, but I still don't see why, in extreme cases, there could not be a re-sorting. Perhaps the relations between Snape and the others got so bad that he was going to quit Hogwarts and Dumbledore, not wishing to send the boy straight to Voldemort (remember, this was when the big V was at the height of his powers) gave him a chance. Regardless, the re-sorting is not necessarily crucial to my idea of James and Snape not always being enemies. I just happen to like the idea because I think it adds to Snape. The possible former friendship is also one explanation as to why Snape betrayed Voldermort and perhaps -- I don't think it's been stated, just assumed -- that Snape tipped off Dumbledore that Voldermort was targeting the Potters. Darrin Burnett Thinks Voldemort should be called "DA V-MEISTER!" instead of "You- Know-Who" From bard7696 at aol.com Fri Jun 14 17:07:36 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:07:36 -0000 Subject: Time turner whodunnit/MAGIC DISHWASHER In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39862 Pip wrote: > > ** IMAGINARY Scenario Two** > > > > Snape and Dumbledore in post-Sirus Escape discussions as before. > > After a night in which he's been knocked unconscious, nearly killed > > by Dementors, had to crawl sickeningly to Fudge, needed to trust > > Dumbledore and collude in the escape of someone he hates; and then, > > worse, have to cover the escape up afterwards by convincing the > > Minister for Magic that he's a complete nutter, Snape is not in the > > happiest of moods. > > > > But WHY would Snape be covering up? He does not find out about Sirius being a good guy until GoF. He doesn't even find out about Sirius being Padfoot until GoF. Why would Snape fake surprise and anger at seeing Sirius at the end of GoF? Just for Harry's benefit? Hell, if anything his surprise and anger made Harry even more suspicious. How does that benefit Dumbledore's master plan? And Snape was angrier at Harry than he's ever been at the end of PoA. If Snape is a good guy, then it follows that he thought Harry had just committed one of the most foolish acts ever, helping Sirius Black escape. I question whether Dumbledore knew of Sirius' innocence until the end of PoA. He insinuates that he did not know that Sirius and Pettigrew had swapped places and Pettigrew was actually the secret- keeper. No, I believe Snape was completely in the dark about Sirius until GoF, in which case he has no motivation to protect any student who he thought might have helped him escape. Pip continued: > > Matters have been made worse by Poppy telling him that the anti- > > headache potion shouldn't be taken with concussion, so he also has > a > > terrible headache. ;-) > > > > Snape: "I have told you and told you that Lupin is not to be > trusted - > > look at the reasons I gave you in Scenario One above. You are very > > fond of everyone's right to make their own choices, Headmaster, so > > now I'm telling you that I have made a choice of my own. Whatever > > your wishes, I am no longer willing to have Remus Lupin in this > > school. I am now going to go bed. In the morning I am going to > inform > > my Slytherins that Lupin is a werewolf. That will force his > > resignation; if you find that you object to this so strongly that > you > > no longer wish me to work with you, then you can have my > resignation > > at the same time. Goodnight!" > > > > And Snape stomps off. > > > > I like Scenario Two - it makes Dumbledore less 'grey' and makes > > Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore much less blind than, say, Hagrid's. > > Snape becomes someone who is willing to disagree with Dumbledore > (and > > act on this) if he feels strongly enough about it - but who will > > *not* do so in an emergency situation. > > I need to read this Magic Dishwasher theory in its entirety, and I will, but it seems to me that it not only assumes Snape is a good guy, but that Snape is the smartest guy in the room. What keeps coming back to me is that for this theory to work, Dumbledore would have had to have Snape around, being nasty to Harry, JUST IN CASE Voldemort came back and JUST IN CASE Fudge would be a weenie about it and try to cover it up. No, I think being nasty to Harry -- and to non-Slytherin students in general -- comes perfectly naturally to Snape. I think his ambition blinds him at times and he ratted out Lupin out of spite. The Dishwasher theory doesn't seem to allow Snape to be petty and spiteful. In fact, at times it seems to make him more sainted than Dumbledore, especially when you consider how callous Dumbledore would have to be to allow everything to happen. Now, will that ultimately have been the right call, and Lupin is a bad guy? Maybe... I do believe someone will betray Dumbledore, and I don't believe it will be Snape, just because of that is too easy. But if it is Lupin, then I think Snape will have just been angry at the right guy for once. > > Darrin wrote: > > > I find it easier to believe Snape wasn't told about Hermione > having > > > the Time-Turner than him knowing all along and play-acting for > > > Fudge. Maybe only the affected professors were told. Perhaps > > > Dumbledore decided it wasn't a good idea for the head of > Slytherin > > > house to know a Time-Turner was around. > > > > > > > > Why, was he going to steal it off Hermione? [grin]. Frankly, with > all > > the exceptionally dangerous potions Snape knows about, I don't > think > > a Time-Turner would be any additional danger. But you seem to be a > > Snape-Is-Ever-So-Evil supporter, and since the most basic premise > of > > MAGIC DISHWASHER is that Snape is NOT evil, we're unlikely to > > agree. ;-) > > It's been hinted that Draco is not far behind Hermione as far as top marks in the class. In CoS, Lucius gripes at Draco for letting the mudblood beat him, and moreover, we really don't read about Draco doing badly in any class. I think Snape could make a fair case that if Granger gets a Time-Turner, then Draco should get one too. And perhaps the powers-that-be didn't want that. This fits with Magic Dishwasher, although I disagree with the theory. The good-guy Snape would have to be kept in the dark on some issues, because if any of the Slytherins figured it out on their own - - saw Hermione turning the hourglass, for instance -- then he has plausible deniability when they go running to him. > > Scenario Two actually doesn't *need* MAGIC DISHWASHER to be > > plausible. You can still have Snape not knowing what the heck is > > going on and saying 'I'm going to force Lupin to resign, and if you > > don't like it you can have my resignation instead...' > > > It IS interesting that Dumbledore didn't fight Lupin harder on the resignation, considering he ignored Hagrid's attempt to resign (Hagrid is a much more popular person, though) and has kept a former Death Eater around. I just hope it turns out that Snape is a lot more conflicted that Magic Dishwasher seems to give him credit for being. He seems to me like an evil guy who did one good thing -- warned Dumbledore about the Potters being next on the hit list -- and regrets it ever since. Darrin Burnett I did something good once. From bard7696 at aol.com Fri Jun 14 17:09:30 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:09:30 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Krum In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39863 ghastrick wrote: > > > > > Very eloquent reply, darrin. > > > > But I must take issue with your final paragraph. Why would Krum > > abandon Hermione for another girl? He seems to be passionately in > > love with her (In so far as that walking block is capable of > > passion). It is Hermione, not Krum, who is showing waning interest. > > Also he wanted her to visit her in Bulgaria, and I think she will > > take him up on his offer. So when he gets back to Bulgaria, he may > > have her with him. > > You want Krum to pine away for Hermione forever? Ultimately, I think she is going to be with someone else. What I said was that Viktor could learn from his attraction to Hermione and start looking for girls with a bit of substance to them. Eventually Krum is going to have to move on. I'm saying he should move to smart girls. He seems to get more out of it. Darrin Burnett -- If I was a Quidditch God, I'd probably stick with groupies From mysteryreefer at yahoo.com Fri Jun 14 16:18:40 2002 From: mysteryreefer at yahoo.com (mysteryreefer) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:18:40 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Minerva McGonagall Is Ever So Evil! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39864 OK, I read all the posts regarding Evil Minerva and I have 2 questions-- if she is indeed so powerful, why couldn't she conjure up a patronus to ward off the dementor from Barty Jr.? However, if she is just a plant for Voldemort, why did she try to hard to get Hermione a Time Turner in PoA? Unless that was actually Dumbledore's idea.... << hurray! my first post EVER!>> "mysteryreefer" From naama_gat at hotmail.com Fri Jun 14 19:55:09 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 19:55:09 -0000 Subject: Of Dishwashers and Animagi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39865 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > Naama wrote: > > But why would Dumbledore have kept quite about [their animagi forms] then? I mean, you have quite a nice theory about why he has to keep silent now, but why keep silent *then*? According to your scenario, Dumbledore knows that four teenagers that are under his charge, are > > breaking the law while putting themselves and others at risk. > > Breaking the law, mind you, not just school rules. Hermione is > > shocked when she hears of this and Lupin agrees with her >>completely - it was very dangerous and foolhardy. While we can >>forgive a bunch of teenagers for foolhardiness, should we forgive a >> headmaster for allowing it to continue? > > > > If Dumbledore had known about the Marauders, I'm sure he would >>have put a stop to the whole thing immediately. He wouldn't have >>allowed a werewolf to wander about and he wouldn't have allowed >>students to perform illegal magic. > > > Why did Dumbledore allow a werewolf into the school? I'm sure it's >much more illegal that than a few unregistered animagi (which seems >to be a common crime). Like Marina pointed out, there's absolutely no evidence that allowing a werewolf into school is illegal. Lupin says, "It seemed impossible that I would be able to come to Hogwarts. Other parents weren't likely to want their children exposed to me", NOT "It was illegal for me to attend school, but Dumbledore was willing to do that for me". >The animgi transformations allowed Lupin, for the >first time, to have some real friends, which is what Dumbledore had >been looking for all along when he admited him. How do you know that Dumbledore admitted him for this reason?! Had a glimpse at D's Pensieve? Anyway, James and Sirius became Animagi after and BECAUSE they were real friends with Lupin. > Dumbledore trusted the boys' good sense, and knew they were not >going to allow Lupin to harm someone. Well, as circumstances proved, that would have been a really bad judgement call, wouldn't it? In fact, they DIDN'T have good sense, they almost got a student killed, and they had "near misses, many of them." >We also know that he is, at least, > tolerant with the sort of petty crimes that happen at a boarding >school (such as someone going to the kitchens to steal). a) Nicking (the verb JKR uses) food from the school kitchen is not a crime, that is, it's not breaking the law, merely school rules. b) Becoming an unregistered Animagi isn't a petty crime. It's a serious enough crime that Hermione is sure she can shut Rita Skeeter up by threatening to report her. c) Letting a werewolf wander around is wrong not only on the formal grounds that it is breaking the law. By doing that you are putting lives at risk. >The fact that James/Harry uses a invisibility cape (which I don't >think is too legal either) doesn't bother Dumbledore either, and >there is not much difference between the animagi forms and the >invisibility cape. Using the invisibility cloak is NOT illegal. Hermione would definitely have warned Harry if it was. However, for the sake of the argument, lets assume that it is illegal. In that case, Dumbledore who, if you remember, gave Harry the cloak, is the instigator of a crime. Hmmm. His delicate shade of grey is turning several shades darker, isn't it? >What worries Hermione and Lupin is not the animagi, is having a >werewolf roam the school, and we know that Sirius and James could >control him on each on their own, so when both Sirius and James were >both transformed I don't think there was that much danger. Both Hermione and Lupin himself did think there was much danger. Since they belong in the WW, I'll take their opinion over yours (no offense intended, I assure you ). Naama From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Fri Jun 14 20:49:19 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 20:49:19 -0000 Subject: The Ballad of Trevor Toad (a TOADKEEPER filk) In-Reply-To: <00d701c1e484$bc08e4c0$7237c2cb@price> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39866 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Tabouli" wrote: Trevor is a toad of treachery, and Neville is none other than the TOADKEEPER (The Odious Amphibian: Death-eater Knavishly Executing Espionage, Pursuing Evil Revenge). I am delighted to see that Trevor Toad is doing rather well in new "Hidden Evil" poll. I hope the following ballad will help popularize the TOADKEEPER theory by supplying both motivation and means for his (putuative) dastardly deeds. The Ballad of Trevor Toad (To the tune of The Ballad of Sweeney Todd, from Sondheim's Sweeney Todd) Dedicated (of course) to Tabouli You can hear several 30-second excerpts of this ballad at: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000002W4L/qid=1024086221/sr=8- 4/ref=sr_8_4/103-6603494-7532658 and a MIDI at: http://www.broadwaymidi.com/shows/sweeney_todd.html THE SCENE: The Chamber of Secrets, bathed in darkness. Enter TOM RIDDLE RIDDLE Attend the tale of Trevor Toad He took a dark and wicked road He allied himself with Neville L. And guided that child then straight down to Hell Did Trevor Did Trevor Toad The Demon Wart-Toad of Hogwarts Enter LUCIUS MALFOY MALFOY They all said hop-toads were unchic They were not sold in posh boutiques So Trevor swore that they'd all pay And everyone rued until their dying day They'd ever Grieved Trevor Toad The Demon Wart-Toad of Hogwarts (Light suddenly floods the Chamber revealing a CHORUS OF DEATH EATERS) CHORUS Zap your bug tongue fast, Trevor! Gobble all the flies! Spring your plot and that whole lot Soon will demise! RIDDLE He may be an amphibian But he belongs in Azkaban For no Dark Lord was ever as bad And no evil wizard was as hopping mad As Trevor As Trevor Toad The Demon Wart-Toad of Hogwarts SEMI-CHORUS I Neville thinks that Trevor is lost He doesn't know he's been double-crossed Trevor's in gear, Trevor is pumping Trevor will get the whole joint jumping SEMI-CHORUS II Trevor knows how to avoid each FLINT Trevor isn't made of peppermint Trevor is hatching, Trevor is nesting Eggs are of chicken, do you get the rest- ing? RIDDLE, MALFOY, & FULL CHORUS Trevor is hatching, Trevor is nesting Eggs are of chicken, do you get the rest- ing? Neville thinks that Trevor is lost He doesn't know he's been double-crossed By Trevor! Trevor! Trevor! Treeeee-vooooor! (Enter TREVOR TOAD on a motorcycle, with a basilisk in the sidecar) TREVOR (stepping forward, removing his goggles) Attend the tale of Trevor Toad He hatched an egg that growed and growed To seek revenge can be a risk But not too great when you have a basilisk Like Trevor TREVOR & CHORUS Like Trevor Toad The Demon Wart-Toad of Hogwarts! (Trevor imperiously dispatches his minions to execute their assigned dark deeds) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm Note: If the ending seems unclear, consult CoS or Fantastic Beasts on the breeding of basilisks. And remember another toad from Wind in the Willows From katgirl at lava.net Fri Jun 14 22:03:59 2002 From: katgirl at lava.net (booklovinggirl) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 22:03:59 -0000 Subject: (SHIPpy) Re: Coloured Flamingos (WAS: TBAY Sirius Black Is Ever So Evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39867 Charis Julia: > Rewind, rewind. . . doesn't see a reason to speak to her, names put > there as more than garnish, Magnolia Crescent. > > Yes! * That* was it. > > Magnolia Crescent. * Magnolia* Crescent. Magnolia * Crescent*. > > Eloise, I think we've got ourselves another flamingo. > > How could I have been so * blind*? It wasn't Sirius who loved > Arabella! It was Remus! I, mean, of * course*! It's all been all > along right there in black and white . Duh! While Sirius/Arabella is shot down, I have a new Sirius Ship. Sirius/Sinistra. (Assuming Sinistra's a she, or for some people, even assuming he's not. ^_~) Bear with me and my twisted ideas for a moment. Think about it. Sinistra's an Astronomy teacher and Sirius is named for the Dog Star. We never get any evidence on how old she is (in the US versions, anyway.) so she could easily have gone to school with the Marauders. She takes on the lonely job of teaching Astronomy, a job which involves living in a tower and having different sleeping hours, both of which result in a certain amount of isolation. And wouldn't this be the PERFECT occupation to take up for someone after Lily and James were killed? The only thing we don't know about with that theory is what she did before they died. Never mind the great angst and coincidence brought about during PoA- Remus and Sinistra reuniting right after Sirius escapes. At the same time, Harry's at school, best friends with Ron and Hermione. Ron is keeping Scabbers as a pet, and Hermione is keeping Crookshanks. And don't forget about Snape. Most of this, of course, came together in the Shack, but, of course, Sinistra wasn't there. Which is something of a flaw in the ship, but anyway. Next bit of evidence. There's also the connection between the names Black and Sinistra. Black, of course, means dark, shaded, the opposite of light. Fiat Incantatum has found an excellent meaning for Sinistra, and I hope they forgive me for reverting back to "sinister." This does not necessarily point to Sinistra being evil, anymore than Sirius is evil- (No, I don't support the recent spate of _________ is Ever So Evil posts. *g*) but there are some interesting between them..... -Katherine From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri Jun 14 22:09:33 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 22:09:33 -0000 Subject: Talented DEs and Power Boosts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39868 Grey Wolf mused: > And now, for a possible explanation which I'm not sure I believe: > could Voldemort have GIVEN them powers, like on loan, in exchange > for their help? That would explain why people with the > constitutions of stones (Crabbe and Goyle) and nearly as > intelligent, can cast those difficult spells. Elkins added: > There is some suggestion in the books that either Voldemort >himself or allegiance to Dark forces in general might indeed have >the ability to imbue wizards with magical powers previously beyond >their capabilities. Oh, these DEs might get more than a power boost from Voldemort. I mean, a power boost is nice and all, but maybe even Voldemort doesn't have enough power to give every DE an overall power boost to make them all Super!DEs. Maybe, just maybe (boy, you know some speculation is coming your way when you see "maybe" *twice* at the beginning of a sentence), Voldemort gives DEs power boosts in *particular areas* only: "Mulciber -- he specialized in the Imperius Curse, forced countless people to do horrific things!" Yup. Voldemort is *efficient." He's rather forgetful, but he runs a tight ship. He decides who in his organization will fulfill certain functions, and gives out those power boosts on an as-needed basis. So, then. We have Mulciber, the Imperius Specialist. We have Wormtail, who received a shot of dueling prowess. We have Crouch Jr., who got a helping of Transfiguration talent. Now, these power boosts are only that -- power *boosts.* They won't make the DEs invincible. That's why it takes Crouch Jr. a whole *year* to figure out how to confund that Cup. But Voldemort sure knew that the whole plan depended on whether Crouch Jr. could confund the cup. So Voldemort used a big hunk of his slimy baby power and sent it Crouch Jr.'s way. Elkins (on Peter's talents): >The Pettigrew that *we* know can pull off a perfectly-timed > explosive spell that kills a dozen people in a single blast. He >can not only cast such a spell; he can also cast it with no >invocation, with one hand quite literally behind his *back,* and >timed to coincide perfectly with an animagus transformation. He >can take advantage of a split-second opportunity to seize a fallen >wand and then -- *with somebody else's wand!* -- cast not one but >*two* spells (one on Ron and one on Crookshanks), all before Harry >can even manage to snap out an "Expelliarmus!" Ah, this is exactly what I mean. Peter's power boost was in the specialty of, well, banging. Of making things go "Bang!" that is. Each of these things is an example of Peter showing tremendous aptitude for . . . well, for blowing things up. Elkins again: OK, OK, OK. I give. Uncle! You're probably right there. Maybe Peter could have tried to claim that it was really Sirius who was the Secretkeeper. Maybe. But Peter also has the little problem of Veritaserum. If it comes down to a Veritaserum interrogation between Sirius and Peter (or even just Peter if Peter blasts Sirius), Peter is going *down.* Yeah, Peter was completely out of decent options there. Twelve years as a rat was the best outcome here. OK, I'm with you there. But I'm not so sure about this next bit: Elkins: > You think those Death Eaters were really *trying* to hit Harry in >the graveyard? Yup, I sure do. You know why? These DEs are there for a *reason.* They signed up hoping to receive *something.* And the only way they can get that *something* is if Voldemort prevails. I mean, they've been on the losing team once already, and that was No Fun At All. They ought to have some vested interest in Voldemort actually winning control of the wizarding world. And for that to happen, Harry has to be eliminated. Now maybe, just maybe, the DEs were a little jumpy about cursing Harry. But Voldemort didn't ask them to AK Harry or anything. They were supposed to shoot a simple stunning spell at him. So what if it rebounds? And the DEs definitely *wanted* to help Voldemort there. They were "asking Voldemort for instructions," and without Voldemort saying a word, "some of them were drawing their wands." You know, I'm still tempted to go with Stunning!Harry -- the idea that Harry has some sort of wicked protection around him to protect against certain DE spells. Remember that Shield Charm that Harry couldn't work. I just can't figure out why else that Shield Charm is even in GoF if not to indicate that Harry has a natural shield against certain minor curses. Harry ran, and the DEs really did try to stun him, but they couldn't because Harry's natural shield. Cindy From dicentra at xmission.com Fri Jun 14 22:43:18 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 22:43:18 -0000 Subject: (SHIPpy) Re: Coloured Flamingos (WAS: TBAY Sirius Black Is Ever So Evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39869 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "booklovinggirl" wrote: Katherine said: > There's also the connection between the names Black and Sinistra. > Black, of course, means dark, shaded, the opposite of light. Fiat > Incantatum has found an excellent meaning for Sinistra, and I hope > they forgive me for reverting back to "sinister." This does not > necessarily point to Sinistra being evil, anymore than Sirius is evil- > (No, I don't support the recent spate of _________ is Ever So Evil > posts. *g*) but there are some interesting between them..... > Ho ho! But there is another link between Sinistra and Sirius: SINISTER is Sirius's pet acronym! (Sirius Isn't Nutters; Instead, Sirius Tried to Do Everything Right) --Dicey, who sees everything coming together now From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jun 15 00:16:58 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 00:16:58 -0000 Subject: Dishwashers , Puppy hunts and werewolf excursions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39870 Grey Wolf said: >> There is no direct relation between Sirius dog-form and MAGIC DISHWASHER that I can think off, and I just wrote the re-cap post!<< According to MAGIC DISHWASHER Dumbledore has known the animal forms of the Marauder animagi ever since they were in school. :-) If he doesn't know that, then he doesn't know that Pettigrew is a rat, and can't connect him with the Prophet picture. Of course, if you want to invent a reason why Dumbledore knew about Pettigrew but not about Black, go right ahead :-) But it would be pretty far-fetched if Dumbledore knew about the rat and missed the humongous dog, particularly since the rat is known to be a very poor student of Transfiguration. Grey Wolf: >>I don't think Dumbledore would have volunteered the information at a point where half the ministry was working for or Imperioed by Voldemort's forces.<< The other half is still on Dumbledore's side. Half an army is better than none, as far as catching Sirius. Also, see Cindy's post #39868 on Voldemort's ability to boost his followers' power to use the Imperius curse so it can control more than one person at a time. That power disappeared at Voldemort's disembodiment. It's one of the ways people knew he was really gone. "People who was on his side came back ter ours. Some of em came outta kinda trances."-- Hagrid, PS/SS ch.4. Pipsqueak: >>>There's another implication from something Hagrid says: "Never occurred to ter me what he [Sirius Black] was doin' there. I didn' know he'd bin Lily an' James' Secret Keeper" (p. 153 PoA) - which is that Dumbledore was giving all his concentration to keeping the Last of the Potters safe and hadn't yet considered the need to find and expose their betrayer. He certainly hadn't considered the need to warn Hagrid about Sirius Black.<<< At the time of the Potters' deaths, all that Dumbledore knows is that something has gone wrong. He's not yet aware that Sirius is missing, much less that he might be a fugitive from justice. As we learned in GoF, there are many ways a spell can fail. Maybe someone made a mistake with the "immensely complex" Fidelius charm, or Voldemort knew of a way to break it. Dumbledore isn't about to say anything against Sirius to Hagrid, who talks too much, until he knows more. He's very alert to the power of rumors, and isn't going to spread them unnecessarily. The situation changes when Sirius turns up missing and evidence is found that he planned to declare himself openly for Voldemort when the Potters died. Then Dumbledore wants Sirius found. The Ministry has far better resources for a puppy-hunt than Dumbledore has, once they bestir themselves. It doesn't make sense for Dumbledore to hold back any information that will help locate Black. Better to find him first, and *if* he turns out to be innocent of betraying the Potters, and *if* the Ministry is able to substantiate that Black is an animagus, then Dumbledore can worry about helping Black beat the unregistered animagus rap. Pipsqueak: >>By the time Dumbledore had finished arranging the Safety Net for Harry, Black had been caught anyway, and the puppy-hunt was over. << Well, I'm not sure. In the first place, it all depends on what you think Rosmerta meant by "the next day." I know I'm disagreeing with the lexicon here, but as Steve himself says, the owls don't start flying till the morning of November 1st. Logically, if Fudge and Rosmerta remember that the Ministry caught up with Sirius the day after they heard about the Potters' deaths, it would have been November 2nd. Especially since Dumbledore says that "today", November 1, will be known as Harry Potter Day. That would give Dumbledore time to finish his spell work, see Harry safely to the Dursleys' doorstep and be interviewed by the Ministry, all before Sirius is caught. I could be wrong. However, in any case either the Ministry questioned Dumbledore about Sirius, or he volunteered information to them. If the Ministry had already caught Sirius, why would they question Dumbledore? They're not bothering with a trial so they don't need evidence. And if Dumbledore is a spymaster who gives out information on a need to know basis only, why did he volunteer information about the Secret Keeper spell when Sirius had already been caught? Pipsqueak: >> Black was off to Azkaban - exposing him as an illegal animagi would also involve exposing the genuinely heroic James and the supposedly heroic Pettigrew as law-breakers. << Nice try But all Dumbledore has to say is, "I have an unconfirmed report that Sirius Black is an animagus. He can take the shape of a large black dog. Please tell your people to be careful." Pippin From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat Jun 15 00:40:32 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 00:40:32 -0000 Subject: Dishwashers , Puppy hunts and werewolf excursions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39871 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naamagatus" wrote: > > > Naama says: > > > But why would Dumbledore have kept quite about it [the > > > Maurauders being Animagi] > Pip replies: > > My theory means that Dumbledore doesn't find out about the > >Maurauders until *after* the Prank. > > > > I have always assumed the 'werewolf' excursions stopped after the > > Prank. I don't think there's any canon evidence either way; but I > > would assume that after the near-death of a student, James and > Sirius would have been very strictly forbidden, on pain of > expulsion,to go near Lupin in his werewolf state. There would then > >have been no real risk in the Maurauders being Animagi. > > > Naama replies: > Yes, if Dumbledore had found out that James and Sirius hang around > Transformed!Lupin then he would most certainly have forbidden them > to do that. > But ... exactly how could Dumbledore forbid them to go near > Transformed!Lupin without revealing that he knows about their being > Animagi? Again, I repeat, Dumbledore finds out *after* the Prank. I do not mean *after* in the sense of 'immediately following'. I mean 'at some time following' - which could mean quite possibly months after. [grin] I admit it may have been the Prank which started Dumbledore wondering. Perhaps Snape did see James become Prongs, and got told 'no, don't be so silly, they don't know enough to be Animagi yet'. Then Dumbledore started to wonder, James being as talented as he was. But at the time the Prank was hot news, Dumbledore didn't know. Naama says: It would have been pretty weak, wouldn't it, to tell clever > 17 year olds that they mustn't go near werewolves. Like, duh, don't > they know that already? Nobody in their right senses would go near > a werewolf in human form. Can Dumbledore really make it believable > that that's what he thinks they have been doing? Hanging around > Lupin as humans? Can he make it believable that he thinks they can > be that stupid? (and WHY should he, anyway?!) > Well, they've just nearly got a fellow student [Snape] killed by letting him go near a werewolf while Snape was in human form, so yes, I think it's *very* believable that Dumbledore can think they'd be that stupid. They've just BEEN that stupid (at least, Sirius has). He would probably assume going down the Whomping Willow tunnel was a game of 'chicken' (are you a chicken or not? If not, just how near to the werewolf do you dare go?) After all, they're Gryffindors, and Gryffindors have to act brave. :-) The alternative is that he has to believe that they *do* know just how stupid it is, and THAT means Sirius was trying to kill Snape after all... You would not believe just how stupid a 16 year old can be (I know, I was one once ). I think the equivalent to playing 'chicken' with a werewolf would be playing 'chicken' with the cars travelling on a motorway at 70 mph - and kids do do that. > Dumbledore may not be a stickler for rules per se, but I don't see > him allowing his students to break the law for the sheer fun of it. > > I have argued that in the middle of a war where the Ministry of Magic is known to include undercover enemy agents, *not* registering might be a life-saver one day. There are sometimes perfectly good reasons for breaking laws. Pip (who is really extremely law abiding) Squeak From violetbaudelaire2002 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 14 22:34:29 2002 From: violetbaudelaire2002 at yahoo.com (violetbaudelaire2002) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 22:34:29 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Minerva McGonagall Is Ever So Evil! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39872 Excuse if I seem out of the fray, but I felt that I simply had to defend McGonagall, not because I have any particular liking for her, but because I do not see her as evil. I'll begin with McGonagall's apparent predeliction for dressing in Slytherin colors, and the assumption that this links her to that house. While this is plausible, I find it difficult to believe a woman would be in tight with Voldemort (yes, I know about the Lestranges, but hang on). Maybe this is phrased badly, and I certainly don't want to sound ultra-feminist, but Slytherins don't place a lot of value on women. Yes, there is Pansy and Mullicent, and presumably others, but the Slytherin Quidditch team has no women players (and I'm sure there is a statement, probably in PoA which says this is slightly odd). The Dark Arts (Slytherin, Death Eaters) seem to me to be a big boys club, very mysogonistic and definitely very patriarchal. I simply cannot buy McGonagall as high up in the club, simply because she's a woman. The Lestranges needn't have been very high ranking (indeed, Crouch Jr wasn't important until Voldemort found out that he was still alive and out of Azkaban), and the female Lestrange was probably following her hubby, as I'm sure Narcissica Malfoy would do (by the way- Slytherin women do tend to be quite vain and narcisstic, and definitely followers, not leaders, and Minerva in mythology was not narcisstic.) As to her appearance on Privet Dr: > First off, McGonagall's very appearance on Privet Drive that morning > is *highly* suspicious. Just what precisely is she doing there, > anyway? She implies that she has been waiting there for Dumbledore -- > and yet she keeps herself hidden from him, only revealing herself > once he makes it clear that he knows perfectly well that she is > there. McGonagall has been compared to Hermione more than once- she doesn't like to break the rules, and she waits for Dumbledore to put all the lights out and approach her. She is worried about the Muggles finding out about the WW, hence her annoyance about the celebrations. McGonagall is simply a very strict, uptight witch (read however you want) > When cats twitch their tails and narrow their eyes, that is an > expression of aggression, anxiety, or predatory intent. It is not > friendly cat behavior. > > In fact, given that this particular cat is actually a witch in cat > form, I would go so far as to say that she reacts to Dumbledore's > appearance with outright *hatred.* I also have cats- and with mine, I see this behavior as a tenseness, anticipation- not necessarily hatred. I could elaborate more on this, as I am certain of McGonagall's innocence. That is not to say that she is not hiding anything, or that there will not be some sort of major plot twist involving her. To sum up- women don't seem to have too powerful a role in the Dark Arts, they have a very subjugated role, and Voldemort even expresses a kind of intolerance with them (as he probably has some sort of abandonment or possibly Oedipal issues). I simply cannot see him as placing a female in a powerful role, or allowing a female to gain power. "violetbaudelaire2002" From bard7696 at aol.com Sat Jun 15 00:28:27 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 00:28:27 -0000 Subject: The Betrayer? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39873 I'm new here, so if I'm covering old ground, just politely give me a good old smack. :) It seems like a pretty solid assumption that someone among the merry band of good guys will betray Dumbledore, giving the V-Meister the upper hand. I've read the most recent posts pointing to Lupin as the culprit and even a few McGoonagall theories. Just like to throw out that the betrayal need not be intentional. In fact, it could be entirely accidental, with the Big V manipulating some of the petty jealousies and somewhat low intellects of some of the group. I think Ron has to be considered, simply because we've seen that he is jealous of the attention Harry gets, and is nursing a deep crush on Hermione. Should Hermione find herself becoming more attracted to another boy (especially Harry) then Ron will be easy to manipulate. Do I think Ron would intentionally betray the group? Not at all. But he could be tricked pretty easily if he was already angry. By that same token, we've already seen Hagrid get bamboozled by a man willing to buy drinks and carrying a dragon's egg (PS/SS), so it is possible he can be manipulated as well. Percy with his pride and ambition. Neville, with his general chuckleheadedness (and his desire for revenge when he finally figures out about his folks). Even Snape, with his petty jealousies. Wouldn't that be the irony? If Snape is indeed the betrayer, but doesn't MEAN to be? Again, if this has been thrown out already, I apologize. Darrin Burnett -- Do you think Dumbledore and Aunt Marge used to be an item? From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat Jun 15 01:31:31 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 01:31:31 -0000 Subject: Dishwashers , Puppy hunts and werewolf excursions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39874 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > The situation changes when Sirius turns up missing and > evidence is found that he planned to declare himself openly for > Voldemort when the Potters died. Then Dumbledore wants > Sirius found. The Ministry has far better resources for a > puppy-hunt than Dumbledore has, once they bestir themselves. > It doesn't make sense for Dumbledore to hold back any > information that will help locate Black. Better to find him first, > and *if* he turns out to be innocent of betraying the Potters, and > *if* the Ministry is able to substantiate that Black is an > animagus, then Dumbledore can worry about helping Black beat the > unregistered animagus rap. Several questions with this - firstly, what evidence? What Fudge says is ''Black was tired of his double-agent role, he was ready to declare his support openly for you-know-who, and he seems to have planned this for the moment of the Potters' death.'' (PoA, p. 153, UK hardback) This could be taken to mean a) Fudge is indulging in after-the-event speculation b) Peter planted evidence that was found *after* the street fight. That the Ministry had evidence *before* the street fight is only one possiblity out of several - c), in fact. Your scenario is that he was 'missing' for about 24 to 36 hours, mine that he was 'missing' for about 8 to 12. Neither is very much time when Dumbledore is probably trying to work out Harry's protection. Evil or not, McGonagall certainly didn't seem to know where to find Dumbledore during that time period, or she'd have asked him those interesting questions earlier. Yet she was close enough in his confidence that she knew Dumbledore had offered to be Secret Keeper himself (PoA p. 153) You're assuming that finding Black would be the most urgent thing on Dumbledore's mind, I'm assuming that Dumbledore would think protecting Harry was the most immediately vital. Murder is an emergency before it's committed; not after. > Well, I'm not sure. In the first place, it all depends on what you > think Rosmerta meant by "the next day." I know I'm disagreeing > with the lexicon here, but as Steve himself says, the owls don't > start flying till the morning of November 1st. Logically, if Fudge > and Rosmerta remember that the Ministry caught up with Sirius > the day after they heard about the Potters' deaths, it would have > been November 2nd. It would also have been a very long time for Peter to quake in his boots.[grin] I think Peter would have been trying to find Sirius as fast as he could - he certainly got there before the Ministry. > > I could be wrong. However, in any case either the Ministry > questioned Dumbledore about Sirius, or he volunteered > information to them. If the Ministry had already caught Sirius, > why would they question Dumbledore? They're not bothering > with a trial so they don't need evidence. Canon is debateable about whether Sirius did or didn't get a trial - besides, just because you don't get a formal trial, doesn't mean Crouch didn't double check Sirius WAS the Secret Keeper - which would mean Dumbledore giving evidence after Sirius's arrest. And if Dumbledore is a > spymaster who gives out information on a need to know basis > only, why did he volunteer information about the Secret Keeper > spell when Sirius had already been caught? The Secret Keeper spell was blown anyway - the people it was supposed to protect were dead. Harry had received new protection. > > Pipsqueak: > >> > Black was off to Azkaban - exposing him as an illegal animagi > would also involve exposing the genuinely heroic James and the > supposedly heroic Pettigrew as law-breakers. << > > Nice try But all Dumbledore has to say is, "I have an > unconfirmed report that Sirius Black is an animagus. He can > take the shape of a large black dog. Please tell your people to be > careful." Why?? For what reason do the Ministry need to know? They know they need to be careful - he's just supposed to have killed 12 muggles. If there is a spell that stops someone using any magic whatever, I imagine they used it on Black until he was safely in Azkaban. Besides, did anyone know before Sirius Black went to Azkaban that being an Animagi was a defense against Dementors? With an average of 7 to 10 Animagi a century, how likely was it one had ever been *near* Azkaban before? Do you think Dumbledore should have told them 'watch out, he got incredibly good marks in Muggle Studies, he's quite capable of building a boat' [or whatever]. To escape from Azkaban Sirius had to discover that being an Animagi was a defense against Dementors, retain his sanity and magic powers when no one had done it for longer than a few months, lose enough weight to slip through a barred cell, survive swimming to the mainland - I know I postulate that Dumbledore is incredibly good at forward planning, but I think anticipating that lot would be straining even his abilities! I stand by the ambiguity of the canon. Dumbledore says 'an extraordinary achievement - not least keeping it quiet from me'(PoA p. 312) when he could have said 'an extraordinary acheivement - not least that it's one of the few things I've never found out' or something else equally unambiguous. (See post 39841) Dumbledore reminds me very much of the old joke; he is never ambiguous - by accident. Pip From buffyeton at yahoo.com Sat Jun 15 02:10:00 2002 From: buffyeton at yahoo.com (EtonBuffy) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 02:10:00 -0000 Subject: Dursleys Die? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39875 Just got an odd thought, do you think the Dursleys will be killed by Voldemort? Or maybe just one of them? From ntg85 at prodigy.net Sat Jun 15 02:22:42 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 02:22:42 -0000 Subject: TBAY: the Marauder's Map Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39876 This must have been brought up before, but I didn't see many theories on the FAQ: How did Fred and George figure out how to work the Marauder's Map? If they found the map in Filch's office, they couldn't have been given instructions on how to use it. How on earth could they have come up with the phrase, "I solemly swear I am up to no good?" Consider how many possible combinations of words there are in the English language, compounded by the fact that it would have been much more secure for the Marauders to come up with a string of gibberish or foreign words, instead of an actual phrase. Granted, they might have used a real sentence for the ease of memory (this *is* a group with Peter Pettigrew in it, after all), but that's still a lot of phrases to go through. I have several theories, with varying levels of plausability: 1. Dumb luck: Fred and George huddled over the parchment, studying it. "Any idea what it is?" asked Fred in the Secret Language (of course thay have a secret language, they're twins!). "None," said George. Fred pulled out his wand and pointed it at the parchment. "Tell us what you're for." >From the end of Fred's wand, green ink spiraled out, forming itself into two cursive letters and a fullstop: "No." George pulled out his wand, pointing it at the parchment. "Pretty please?" he said. "We said 'No'," the map replied. "Please?" asked Fred in a whiny voice. "I solemly swear I am up to no good!" 2. Invisible Brain: Fred and George huddled over the parchment, studying it. "Any idea what it is?" asked Fred in the Secret Language (of course thay have a secret language, they're twins!). "None," said George. Fred pulled out his wand and pointed it at the parchment. "Tell us what you're for." >From the end of Fred's wand, green ink spiraled out, forming itself into a sentence: "Why should we?" "Because we want to know," said George. "What do you care?" the paper asked. "We found you in the 'Highly Dangerous' drawer in Filch's office," explained Fred. "We want to know why you're highly dangerous." "You stole from Filch?" exclaimed the parchment. "You kids are our kind of scum, fearless and inventive. Thirty-fi-- um, we mean, say, 'I solemnly swear I am up to no good.'" 3. Random chance: "Chocolate hot-fudge sundae!" said Fred. "Goo-goo-ga-choob!" said George. "Why don't you give up already?" asked the parchment. "You'll never guess the secret words." "So it is more than one word!" exclaimed Fred. "Damn," said the parchment. "Besides," said George, "We've been up for twelve days straight doing this. We're not about to quit now." "We promise that we are good?" "We promise that we are up to no good?" said George. So whaddaya think? any good enough for Theory Bay? Even, like, some water wings? The Random Monkey, who (insert suckup here) From ntg85 at prodigy.net Sat Jun 15 01:48:56 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 01:48:56 -0000 Subject: The Betrayer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39877 darrin_burnett: > It seems like a pretty solid assumption that someone among the merry > band of good guys will betray Dumbledore, giving the V-Meister the > upper hand. > Just like to throw out that the betrayal need not be intentional. In > fact, it could be entirely accidental > I think Ron has to be considered, simply because we've seen that he > is jealous of the attention Harry gets, and is nursing a deep crush > on Hermione. Should Hermione find herself becoming more attracted to > another boy (especially Harry) then Ron will be easy to manipulate. > Do I think Ron would intentionally betray the group? Not at all. But > he could be tricked pretty easily if he was already angry. I disagree. Ron may be jealous, but I think he knows that Harry doesn't mean to, or even like to, attract attention. Also, Ron was raised in the Weasley family, which abhors dark magic. My guess is, if put face-to-face with Voldemort, the only time he would open his mouth would be to spit. Then again, I'm a pretty CRABby person... > > By that same token, we've already seen Hagrid get bamboozled by a man > willing to buy drinks and carrying a dragon's egg (PS/SS), so it is > possible he can be manipulated as well. My money's on this one. Hagrid "lets slip" many things, especially when drunk. It has already been pointed out that Hagrid seems to have a drinking problem. Plus, he's just a little too trusting... > Percy with his pride and ambition. Percy I could see, even if he is a Weasley. He seems atypical of the laid-back Weasleys, and he would seem to be the most likely to put his job above his scruples. He works in a DE-infested Ministtry, where he has the brownest nose seen in years. It's not hard to see him telling a supposedly trustworthy superior info in exchange for a promotion. >Neville, with his general > chuckleheadedness (and his desire for revenge when he finally figures > out about his folks). That I can't see. Why would he give information in revenge? If her realized what he was doing, why would he think that wasgetting even? If he didn't why would he give information? He might do something k=like the lost passwords in PoA, but he couldn't do it intentionally. >Even Snape, with his petty jealousies. > > Wouldn't that be the irony? If Snape is indeed the betrayer, but > doesn't MEAN to be? How sweet it is. > Darrin Burnett > -- Do you think Dumbledore and Aunt Marge used to be an item? I hope not. That's just a baaad image. *shivers violently* The Random Monkey, who is obsessive like a ff.net-er about her ickle Ronnykins From ntg85 at prodigy.net Sat Jun 15 01:23:32 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 01:23:32 -0000 Subject: Time-Turner In-Reply-To: <7d.28afdcca.2a3acafe@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39878 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., elfundeb at a... wrote: Responding to two posts at once: Eloise: > > So....Hermione attends Divination. Whilst she is there, the Arithmancy > > class > > takes place, *without* Hermione. As far as the other students are concerned > > she isn't there - or is she? Not until/unless she does actually use the TT. > > So if she uses it, is she changing something or not? And if Harry was sent > > from Divination to the Arithmancy classroom, would he see her there or not? > > Debbie: > The other students always see Hermione in Arithmancy. so if Trelawney sent Harry with a note for Professor Vector, > Harry would see Hermione both in Divination and in Arithmancy. Quite! This is supported by the fact that Harry sees himself do Expecto Patronum. On another note, if Harry saw Hermione in two places at once, he wouldn't believe it (or, more than likely, he would, but just be horribly confused.) That is why, when seeing himself do Expecto Patronus, since he was about to be killed by dementors, and was horribly disoriented, he thought it was his father. If he were thinking rationally, he would think, "But that's me! But... It can't be!" Eloise: > > But I still come back to the thought that it is very strange that one of > > the > > most important wizarding laws is that you mustn't change time if, in fact, > > it > > is impossible to do so. It's not impossible. Basically, you will know what happened before you actually do it. The effect is seen before the cause. Non-canon example: Ever seen Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure? Remember that part where they're at the police station, and Ted (or Bill, one of them) says, "What if in the future, I go back in time and hide the keys [to the jail call they're trying to get into] under this bush?" He then pulls the keys out from under the bush. He has not done it yet, but because he will, eventually, effect a change *in the past*, the effect can be seen before the cause. But if he never went back, he would have pulled a handful of dirt out from under the bush. So he did change time, it just *seems* like he didn't because he knows the effects before he caused them. > > But I wonder what 'changing time' means? Is it saying the TT itself is > > illegal? Hermione seems clearly to be indicating that whatever they are > > aboutto do *is* illegal, yet the TT apparently has legitimate use, to which > > McGonnagall confirmed it was going to be confined. Debbie: > I haven't decided whether Hermione means that they were acting illegally > because the Ministry had not authorized her to use the Time-Turner for > purposes other than studies (i.e., being in 2 places at once) or because > there was something inherently wrong about what they attempted to do. Both. Hermione knows the ministry hasn't authorized it, and never would in a million years, because it's inherently wrong. There is an innocent sort of time travel, with no negative effects (except Hermione's high stress level), abd there's malicious time travel, to do something illegal. Debbie: >I don't think it's impossible for Harry to pick > up the Invisibility Cloak (that would perhaps fall into the same category as > killing one's own other self, which Hermione clearly states has happened) She did? It sounded to me like she just thought it was a possibility. Can you cite the canon for me? (I'm afraid I don't own copies of the books, and check them out from the library, and usually the Spanish edition then.) Harry's not authorized to use the TT, so he hasn't been instructed on > what happens when someone tries to change an event. His natural instinct is > to try to improve history, which he may not do because he'll fall into the > paradox of creating multiple histories. New non-canon ref: Red Dwarf, the novel (second novel, I think, correct me if I'm wrong): Lister sees Cat running down the hall, screaming about his teeth. He knows that this is an image from the future. He tries to stop whatever happens to Cat, to prove the future isn't set in stone. He runs into his bedroom, where Cat is about to eat one of Lister's robotic goldfish. Lister goes to stop him, in the process knocking Cat around, and somehow damaging Cat's teeth. Cat runs down the hall, screaming about his teeth. This is what I was referring to in my previous "waking the baby" post. Anything you try to do to change the future is in vain. (Actually, I can't believe I'm arguing for this theory, as I always held it in highest contempt.) Eloise: each class period was only held once, but Hermione1 attended > Divination, Hermione2 attended Arithmancy, etc. No, there was only Hermione1. Hermione1 as seen in Divination was an hour younger than Hermione1 as seen in Arithmancy. Eloise: > > And needs to go and think about Snape and Quidemort again. Quidemort? Sounds intriguing! Can you e-mail and tell me what that's about, please? The Random Monkey, who is trying to figure out how the veteran listies keep up with al these posts! From Edblanning at aol.com Sat Jun 15 06:00:20 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 02:00:20 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Minerva McGonagall Is Ever So Evil! Message-ID: <8f.1d844503.2a3c31f4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39879 Mysteryreefer: > OK, I read all the posts regarding Evil Minerva and I have 2 > questions-- if she is indeed so powerful, why couldn't she > conjure up a patronus to ward off the dementor from Barty Jr.? > However, if she is just a plant for Voldemort, why did she try to > hard to get Hermione a Time Turner in PoA? Unless that was > actually Dumbledore's idea.... Welcome. Two good questions. I think the theory goes that she didn't ward off the Dementor for the very reason that Crouch Jr. was liable to reveal her Evilness. One of the things about Ever-So-Evil characters is that they are just that and tend to care about their own welfare above all else. They are not always co-operating in their Ever-So-Evilness. This is also, as it happens compatible with the objection that she appears in Crouch/Moody's Foe Glass. She would, wouldn't she? She's about to let the Dementors get him. Crouch's Kissing is also held to be convenient for Evil! Bagman, Evil!Fudge and Evil!Snape. As for the TT. Well, I'm glad you raised that, as it is actually further indication of her Ever-So-Evilness. Who is the student most likely to put two and two together? Who sussed out Lupin was a werewolf? Hermione, of course. Well, old Minerva's *delighted* that Hermione wants an impossible timetable. What could be better? Let her do it and not only will she more than fully occupied during the school week, but she will have to spend *all* her free time an homework and be far too tired to interfere or work out that here revered Head of House has a secret agenda of her own. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Jun 15 08:48:14 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 08:48:14 -0000 Subject: Quidemort/Keeping up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39880 The Random Monkey wrote: > Quidemort? Sounds intriguing! Can you e-mail and tell me what that's > about, please? You've probably alrady been told this, but it never hurts to make sure: "Quidemort" makes a reference to the Voldmort-possesed Quirrell, on the basis that Voldemort was partially controlling and always listening/ talking to Quirell. It's the same idea of saying Real!Moody and Crouch!Moody, but I suppose that VoldemortPossesed!Quirrell is just a tad too long. > The Random Monkey, who is trying to figure out how the veteran > listies keep up with al these posts! We don't, we discriminate (at least I). I can normally know if there is something worth discussing (from my PoV) by reading the first few lines of the post (if it's a muliple thread post, I obvously read each begining), and then I normally scan the text to see if anything jumps to my attention. Normally, when the first post of a thread does no interest me, I don't follow the thread at all (this is what happened to many listees with MAGIC DISHWASHER, and now it's too late to turn back, so the best way was to make the resume I did). Still, sometimes you'll find that you don't have time even for that. Then you've got to start guessing if you'll like the thread by it's name (that's why it's important for the threads to be correctly named). If you don't have time even for this (hey, we've all got our share of stressfull days/weeks/months!), you've normally have to abandom all hopes of reading all the threads and when you come back just accept that there are threads you'll never know about. When that happens to me, I'm also very self-conscious that someone may have said what I would like to say two days before, so I normally have to re-introduce those wonderful "sorry if it's been said before" disclaimers. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who is prepared to accept other people consider him a veteran listee, but who didn't expect to sound like a mod... but he does. From violetbaudelaire2002 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 15 03:15:56 2002 From: violetbaudelaire2002 at yahoo.com (violetbaudelaire2002) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 03:15:56 -0000 Subject: TBAY: the Marauder's Map In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39881 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "random_monkey0_0" wrote: > This must have been brought up before, but I didn't see many theories > on the FAQ: > > How did Fred and George figure out how to work the Marauder's Map? > If they found the map in Filch's office, they couldn't have been given > instructions on how to use it. How on earth could they have come up > with the phrase, "I solemly swear I am up to no good?" Consider how > many possible combinations of words there are in the English language, > compounded by the fact that it would have been much more secure for > the Marauders to come up with a string of gibberish or foreign words, > instead of an actual phrase. Granted, they might have used a real > sentence for the ease of memory (this *is* a group with Peter > Pettigrew in it, after all), but that's still a lot of phrases to go > through. > > I have several theories, with varying levels of plausability: I am happy this subject was brought up, though as I am new here, this could all be previously hashed material. I had a slight revelation (not the right word...) upon my last reading of SS- Fred and George could not have had (or at least been using) the Marauder's Map at the time of SS. Somewhere in ch. 11 or 12 of the US version, they say that they are going to check out a passage that Lee Jordan discovered, though they think it was the one they found in their first year. If they were using the map (they say in PoA that they got it first year), then they wouldn't have to check out this passage- they would know of its existence or lack thereof. If my math is correct (and my math tends to be shaky), Fred and George are third years in SS (right?)- they snagged the map first year, and at least by fifth year (the time of PoA) they know how to use it. Theoretically they could have been playing around with combinations for four years. It is also possible that the map told them how it worked- maybe by some magic, or come act of Fred and George, the map was able to sense a prankster vibe/connection. Or- maybe our good friend Scabbers told them (subliminal messaging, anyone?). It is save to assume that animagi retain some level of human cognitive function, though according to Sirius they lose human emotions- they can obviously hear, can they speak? The biggest question about the map is how Fred and George never noticed someone with the name Pettigrew on the map, but Lupin did. Maybe I'm straying from the book- but maybe the map didn't show the same things to them that it showed Harry or even the makers of the map. Maybe Fred and George didn't have the right magic/vibe/whatever to fully utilize the map... just thoughts... VioletBaudelaire- who is completely addicted to children's literature and will never grow up From eclipse02134 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 15 03:30:40 2002 From: eclipse02134 at yahoo.com (Eclipse) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 20:30:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] : Time-Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020615033040.25730.qmail@web20803.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39882 People have asked why diesn't Lupin notice H & H on the map. However why don't Harry and Ron notice more then one Hermoine? I don't have my book, so I don't know when and how many times they looked at it. I would think if Hermoine had noticed two of her on it, she wouldn't have pointed it out. Eclipse __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From bard7696 at aol.com Sat Jun 15 04:02:39 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 04:02:39 -0000 Subject: The Betrayer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39883 Random Monkey wrote: > > I disagree. Ron may be jealous, but I think he knows that Harry > doesn't mean to, or even like to, attract attention. Also, Ron was > raised in the Weasley family, which abhors dark magic. My guess is, if > put face-to-face with Voldemort, the only time he would open his mouth > would be to spit. > Then again, I'm a pretty CRABby person... > Ah, but I doubt Voldemort would do something so unsubtle as show up and say: "Oi Ron, that Harry is hogging your glory, ain't he, mate?" It would be through layers of agents and webs. Perhaps a veela who gets in between the lads. Perhaps in a teacher who fawns over Ron and mocks Harry. I'd never suggest that Ron would WILLINGLY betray his friend, but all I'm saying is that a jealous fellow is easy to manipulate. > >Neville, with his general > > chuckleheadedness (and his desire for revenge when he finally > figures > > out about his folks). > > That I can't see. Why would he give information in revenge? If her > realized what he was doing, why would he think that wasgetting even? > If he didn't why would he give information? He might do something > k=like the lost passwords in PoA, but he couldn't do it > intentionally. > Think about Neville. He's a courageous boy, but a tad short on talent and brains. He tried to fight Crabbe and Goyle at once? Tried to stop Harry, Ron and Hermione by himself? Needs to pick his spots a bit better. What would a boy with loads of courage and a thimbleful of talent do if he found out that his parents were mentally maimed by the Big V? He'd go charging out as fast as he could and follow anyone who CLAIMED to be willing to help. Again, not intentional, which is the key point of my post. Neville would never be an intentional bad guy, but his eagerness combined with a lack of common sense is a dangerous combination. Darrin Burnett -- Wants to see the Fleur/Cho Chang catfight From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Sat Jun 15 06:22:59 2002 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (arcum42) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 06:22:59 -0000 Subject: Dursleys Die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39884 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "EtonBuffy" wrote: > Just got an odd thought, do you think the Dursleys will be killed > by Voldemort? Or maybe just one of them? It seems as if events at the Dursleys have been escalating each summer, which could be seen as leading up to something. I'm not certain if it will be specifically Voldemort or one of his followers, but after GoF, I did find myself feeling like the Dursleys were doomed. Previously, it wouldn't have been feasible to kill off the Dursleys, but each book sees Harry more and more independant of the Dursleys, and as of GoF Harry can stay with the Weasleys temporarily, and Sirius on a more permanent basis, once he's no longer on the run. I also strongly suspect that their death/s will be directly related to their character flaws. I could easily see the Dursleys die from not trusting Harry at a critical moment. A scene involving Sirius, Harry, the Dursleys, and the evil wizard of your choice could also be interesting, given that they still think of Sirius as a mass murderer... --Arcum, who is also starting to wonder if all the talk about Evil!Lupin & Evil!Sirius is leading to Evil!Maurauders... From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sat Jun 15 11:19:43 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 11:19:43 -0000 Subject: Dishwashers , Puppy hunts and werewolf excursions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39885 Pip said: I have always assumed the 'werewolf' excursions stopped after the Prank. I don't think there's any canon evidence either way; but I would assume that after the near-death of a student, James and Sirius would have been very strictly forbidden, on pain of expulsion,to go near Lupin in his werewolf state. There would then have been no real risk in the Maurauders being Animagi. Then, in reply to my objections: Again, I repeat, Dumbledore finds out *after* the Prank. I do not mean *after* in the sense of 'immediately following'. I mean 'at some time following' - which could mean quite possibly months after. [grin] I admit it may have been the Prank which started Dumbledore wondering. Perhaps Snape did see James become Prongs, and got told 'no, don't be so silly, they don't know enough to be Animagi yet'. Then Dumbledore started to wonder, James being as talented as he was. But at the time the Prank was hot news, Dumbledore didn't know. Naama: So, if I undertand you correctly, the timeline is this: ==== 1 The Prank 2 Dumbledore forbidding James and Sirius from going near werewolf!Lupin. (Dumbledore still doesn't know about the Animagi stunt.) 3 James and Sirius stop their nightly escapades as Animiagi 4 Dumbledore finds out that they are Animagi ==== Problem: if they have stopped their Animagi activities, how did Dumbledore find out about it? Puzzled!Naama From jmt59home at aol.com Sat Jun 15 11:27:38 2002 From: jmt59home at aol.com (jtdogberry) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 11:27:38 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Minerva McGonagall Is Ever So Evil! Not In-Reply-To: <8f.1d844503.2a3c31f4@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39886 > Mysteryreefer: > > > OK, I read all the posts regarding Evil Minerva and I have 2 > > questions-- if she is indeed so powerful, why couldn't she > > conjure up a patronus to ward off the dementor from Barty Jr.? > > However, if she is just a plant for Voldemort, why did she try to > > hard to get Hermione a Time Turner in PoA? Unless that was > > actually Dumbledore's idea.... It could be that it happened too fast for her to stop. She had to stay with Crouch Jnr, if Fudge came in, she may not have seen the dementor in time. Remember that Snape saw it as well. Also, Lupin said that many grown wizards have trouble with the charm, Mcgonagall said so herself, that she is not the best at charms in POA when she said that she would take the Firebolt to Flitwick. The time turner, she really believes that Herminone is a brilliant student, she gave her a rare smile on the first lesson. She would have had to speak with Dumbledore first. I really don't believe that she is evil at all. Dogberry From ntg85 at prodigy.net Sat Jun 15 02:49:41 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 02:49:41 -0000 Subject: of rats, toes, and wizards (was: The Spying Game) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39887 > If Dumbledore had known about the Marauders, I'm sure he would have > put a stop to the whole thing immediately. He wouldn't have allowed a > werewolf to wander about and he wouldn't have allowed students to > perform illegal magic. > > > Naama Ah, but you forget about the magic dishwasher! See, Dumbledore knew that, in order to have Voldemort make a potion with Harry's blood, he would have to let the animagi run around with a werewolf and hope they could keep it in line. The Random Monkey, a BLAMELESS GORE EYELIDS, What the HELL From gnatfly at lycos.co.uk Sat Jun 15 11:06:10 2002 From: gnatfly at lycos.co.uk (natalka57) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 11:06:10 -0000 Subject: House Moving and Sorting Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39888 Felicia wrote, referring to darrin_burnett's theory: >Much detailed discussion has taken place about The Prank and if there was >something earlier e.g. The Incident, say, a house move *might* not be out of >the question, given Snape's gift for potions. There may be no canonical >evidence for house changing but it can't be completely unknown - just out of >Harry's sphere of knowledge. (I am always puzzled why Neville - a gifted >herbology student - was placed in Gryffindor. I know his Mum and Dad were >attached but.....) I think it would be all but unknown. If you fell out with everyone in the house, tough, you had to work through it, people would not have been thrown out of one house because they were being a nuisance or not getting on with the others, or because all their friends were in other houses. Simply a case of numbers and fitting people into rooms meant that people would not have gone running round changing places, it would not have been thought of ? at least not seriously. [No canon, but I went to a UK boarding school and that was how it was.] Leading on from that, although it's obvious the Sorting Hat simply dictates where the students go without their agreement - Harry is thinking desperately "Not Slytherin", and Hermione says "I hope I'm in Gryffindor" ? probably a thought she would have reiterated when she got the hat on her head. (Though I do wonder, why would oh-so- studious Hermione not have been instantly attracted to Ravenclaw and what makes her think that Gryffindor "sounds by far the best"?) And these two have Muggle upbringings and know far less about the school's traditions and the different houses, but even they have gained some strong impressions by the time they get to the Sorting. Most of the children from magical families probably already know where they want to go and if their feelings are strong enough, they might well be the most influential point in the hat's decision. This could well explain Neville's sorting, and also the reason why I feel that Snape would not originally have been anywhere but Slytherin ? if he knew all those Dark Curses, and probably comes from a Wizarding family, he would have known the reputations of the four houses and would most likely have been thinking about Slytherin most of all on his arrival at Hogwarts. The hat though, does need to decide for those who are undecided as well as ensure that the houses are all roughly equal, as they seem to be. Sometimes the hat takes a long time to make a decision ? I don't think the hat is taking a long time, it's merely embroiled in a long conversation with the student about relative merits of one house over another. What it is doing is giving the students the chance to indicate a preference. No guarantee, but I would bet that the majority of them did get into their first choice. Which is then why the traditions of these houses get perpetuated. I'm convinced the hat, had it not consulted Harry at all, would have put him in Slytherin. (I don't unfortunately, have my books with me, so I can't back this up with exact quotes, but that was the impression I got ? as well as when it tells him, later, "I was right, you would have done well in Slytherin.") While I'm on the subject of schools and houses, recently there has been some kind of argument over Hermione's age as well as when she got her letter to Hogwarts. I find it very strange that Harry only got his letter six weeks, more or less, before he started at Hogwarts. If Wizarding families are waiting for these letters, it doesn't give them much chance to sort out an alternative if that letter doesn't come. The opposite must be true of those coming from Muggle families, they would already have had a school sorted out, maybe as much as four or five months before. How does McGonagall go about convincing Muggle parents in such a short time? Natalka (who has been lurking for a while, and finally decided she needed to waffle. Hi!) From jferer at yahoo.com Sat Jun 15 14:27:15 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 14:27:15 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Minerva McGonagall Is Ever So Evil! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39889 Mysteryreefer:"...if she [McGonagall] is indeed so powerful, why couldn't she conjure up a patronus to ward off the dementor from Barty Jr.?" You have to practice stuff like the Patronus Charm, and she probably had no occasion to learn it, just like the world's greatest violinist can't play the guitar. And why on earth would she be a plant for Voldemort? Man, we really need OotP to come out.... From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat Jun 15 15:42:08 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 15:42:08 -0000 Subject: Dishwashers , Puppy hunts and werewolf excursions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39890 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naamagatus" wrote: > Pip said: > > I have always assumed the 'werewolf' excursions stopped after the > Prank. I don't think there's any canon evidence either way; but I > would assume that after the near-death of a student, James and > Sirius would have been very strictly forbidden, on pain of > expulsion,to go near Lupin in his werewolf state. There would then > have been no real risk in the Maurauders being Animagi. > > Then, in reply to my objections, Pip said: > > Again, I repeat, Dumbledore finds out *after* the Prank. I do not > mean *after* in the sense of 'immediately following'. I mean 'at > some time following' - which could mean quite possibly months after. > > [grin] > > I admit it may have been the Prank which started Dumbledore > wondering. But at the time the Prank was hot news, > Dumbledore didn't know. > > > Naama replied: > > So, if I undertand you correctly, the timeline is this: > > ==== > 1 The Prank > > 2 Dumbledore forbidding James and Sirius from going near > werewolf!Lupin. (Dumbledore still doesn't know about the Animagi > stunt.) > > 3 James and Sirius stop their nightly escapades as Animiagi > > 4 Dumbledore finds out that they are Animagi > ==== > > > Problem: if they have stopped their Animagi activities, how did > Dumbledore find out about it? > > Puzzled!Naama Yup, we are now working on the same timeline. One more go on this and then I have to get back to working on the Graveyard scene (otherwise Grey Wolf will be making a special journey from his frozen wastes to put an Imperius on me :-) ) I can think of at least four possible ways Dumbledore could have found out about the Maurauders as Animagi (long) after the Prank. One: Severus Snape told Dumbledore he had seen James transform during the Prank. At the time Dumbledore didn't believe him, but then he started to wonder. While the Maurauders stopped the 'werewolf' excursions, it didn't stop individual Maurauders occasionally transforming (Dumbledore hadn't forbidden that, because he didn't know about it). Dumbledore was by then looking for evidence of transforming, and so spotted it. Two: Snape knew nothing about the Maurauders Animagi abilities, but individual Maurauders did continue occasionally transforming - so Dumbledore spotted it at that later point. Three: Dumbledore knew nothing about the Maurauders while they were still at school, but we know from canon that James Potter was helping him in the Voldemort-Potter war after he left school. James had to do some piece of work and found he needed to transform into Prongs. Dumbledore then (thinking back to the Prank) realised that this may have been why Sirius thought playing with a werewolf was a joke, and asked James if he was the only Maurauder who could transform. Dumbledore then asked James not to tell the other Maurauders that Dumbledore knew about their abilities because he thought one of them was a spy - see PoA for this [and in an information war, information about a spy that the spy doesn't realise you know is like gold-dust]. Four: James Potter told Dumbledore in a 'there were some things you never guessed when we were at school' conversation. Dumbledore then asked James not to tell the other Maurauders that he'd revealed their secret for the reasons given in Three above. I'm quite sure there are more than four possibilities... Pip (who thinks that the real question we should always ask about Dumbledore is not "why *didn't* he tell someone that information?', but 'why *did* he tell someone that information? ') Squeak From violetbaudelaire2002 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 15 13:12:13 2002 From: violetbaudelaire2002 at yahoo.com (violetbaudelaire2002) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 13:12:13 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Ron and the Best Game of Chess Ever (Was The Betrayal) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39891 After reading thoughts about whether Ron could be duped into unintentionally betraying Harry, I thought I would take some time to examine the chess game from SS, as we know that Ron is good at chess; so good that it is the one thing he can beat Hermione at (as an offshoot: Hermione says not all wizards are good at logic- who are these wizards? And if she's so good at logic, why isn't she a better chess player?) Ron choses the pieces that each one of the Trio will become, Harry a bishop, Hermione a castle, and a knight for himself. Though I am by no means an excellent chess player (I'm not bad), I see this as an interesting choice. Bishops are quite powerful, they have a wide range of movement, and bishops (in general) suggest a certain kind of stoicism, or holiness. Ron appoints Harry as bishop- he sees Harry as a stoic figure, powerful and fluid in movement. Harry will move diagonally (hmm... diagonally...Diagon Ally) Hermione becomes the castle- this is obvious, she is the rock sold fortress. Castles move straight left to right/up or down. Hermione is definitely very straight and rigid. Ron makes himself a knight- he is the overshadowed little brother/friend, desprately looking for glory, hence the knight. Knights, while powerful, have very limited moves, and good chess players can be sneaky and stealthy with their knights (BTW, to win the game in SS, Ron says he'll "take one step forward and she'll take me" SS- US page 283. I hope this is some error on JKR's part or an incomplete thought on Ron's, as knights *never* move just one step in *any* direction, and Ron's not much of a chess player if he thinks so.) Back to Ron the Knight: He makes excellent use of himself as knight, and takes quite a few pieces, thereby demonstrating his power (and, incidently, his prowess at logic and strategy). But the biggest thing Ron does is *sacrifice himself for the good of the team*. He is desperate for glory, honor, adventure, but he knows when to step back and let others take over. Granted, all three have their special talents and their time under the trap door is one in which they can show off these talents, but Ron is the one who puts himself in harms way to help Hermione and Harry (not just those two, but also himself, if you view them as an inseperable Trio). Someone may be able to hoodwink Ron into a betrayal, but I think this would be difficult. Ron, while feeling overshadowed by Harry's fame, would give sacrifice himself to protect Harry. Possibly Ron will become a martyr. I know this is getting long, but there are other acts by Ron which support my idea that Ron will be a martyr rather than betrayer: He volunteers to be manacled to Pettigrew (and also a werewolf). Yes, I know this was because he was quite offended by the Scabbers/Pettigrew thing, but it also shows bravery and a willingness to go to great lengths to protect his friend. In GoF, though he has a petty jealousy of Harry, he still goes downstairs to check on him (while Harry is talking to Sirius in the fire), and after he is wholeheartedly convinced that someone is trying to kill Harry, Ron offers his friendship and protection. I think Ron has weaknesses, but he will be tough to trick, only because his friendship for Harry is too strong. -Submitted for your approval by VioletBaudelaire From itskimmy at yahoo.com Sat Jun 15 13:55:07 2002 From: itskimmy at yahoo.com (itskimmy) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 13:55:07 -0000 Subject: Dursleys Die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39892 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "EtonBuffy" wrote: > > Just got an odd thought, do you think the Dursleys will be killed > > by Voldemort? Or maybe just one of them? > arcum42 wrote: > I also strongly suspect that their death/s will be directly related > to their character flaws. I could easily see the Dursleys die from > not trusting Harry at a critical moment. A scene involving Sirius, > Harry, the Dursleys, and the evil wizard of your choice could also be > interesting, given that they still think of Sirius as a mass murderer... Interesting point which i agree with. We have already seen that the Dursleys are reluctant to accept help from wizards, as in the GoF when Fred 'accidently' drops a ton tounge toffee which is then eaten by Dudley. 'Not to worry i can sort him out!' he (Mr Weasley)yelled, advancing on Dudley with his wand outstretched, but Aunt Petunia screamed worse than ever and threw hemself on top of Dudley, shielding him from Mr. Weasley.' GoF p47-48 Uk paperback. If Voldemort did discover where Harry stayed during the Summer and got round whatever defenses Dumbledore had arranged then it's likly he would attack Harry there before he got back to Hogwarts and back under Dumbledores protection. Kim From bard7696 at aol.com Sat Jun 15 16:04:19 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 16:04:19 -0000 Subject: A case against Evil Lupin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39893 This has nothing to do with canon, or passages of dialogue with 17 different meanings. This is about practicality. Let's look at the "twists" in the first four books: 1) Quirrell is the bad guy, not Snape. 2) Tom Riddle is Voldermort and Ginny Weasley is the Heir to Slytherin 3) Scabbers is Pettigrew who is the bad guy, not Black. 4) Moody is Crouch Jr., who is the bad guy. In all four cases, the bad guys turned out to be characters that were either new or not that popular. There was no great love for Quirrell among anyone. Tom Riddle and Ginny Weasley were brand-new, and Ginny wasn't really a bad person anyway. Although I'm sure I'll hear from the "Scabbers was a patsy" faction on the board, I don't really see how Ron's old pet rat being a bad guy brought a lot of tears. And Moody, though pretty cool, was also brand-new. On the other hand, Lupin seems to have become one of the most popular characters among the Hogwarts students AND among fans. For sheer practicality, I'm not sure JKR turns someone that popular bad. It's simply not good business. :) Darrin Burnett -- Whatever happened to Fluffy, anyway? From bard7696 at aol.com Sat Jun 15 16:21:53 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 16:21:53 -0000 Subject: So, why did Snape turn on Voldermort? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39894 It has not been established that Snape was indeed the spy who tipped off Dumbledore that the Potters were a target, but that's obviously the strongest possibility. Regardless, Snape did turn on the V-Meister, and I'm curious as to the theories why. My one assumption is that Snape's hatred of Harry is NOT an act. For Dishwasherites, Snape hating Harry DOES fit. He can grudgingly accept Harry as the best hope and still despise him in spite of (or because) of it. Anyway, my thoughts: 1) His life debt to James came a-calling. I've said that I think it would be interesting if Snape and James were friends in their first-year (or perhaps in their pre-Hogwarts days) and then drifted apart. BUT regardless of friendship, Snape does owe his life to James. Snape had no choice but to save him. The "no choice" part would establish why Snape hates Harry. He had a good thing going with the Death Eaters and thanks to the stupid prank, Snape ended up with a life debt to someone he hated. On the other hand, it seems that Snape wouldn't have stuck around as long as he did if it was just one debt. You could argue that Voldemort's crowd wouldn't take him back, but if they KNEW Snape was the spy, wouldn't people like Lucius Malfoy scream bloody murder at Snape being head of his son's house? 2) He was trying to save Lily, not James. I've read some fan sites that speculate Snape was in love with Lily. Go with that. He found out Volderoni was going after the Potters and he didn't want Lily killed. This could explain why he is so hard on Harry. The lady Snape was in love with sacrificed her life for Harry, and the least the little jerk can do is pay attention in Potions class, right? On the other hand, it doesn't totally explain why he has stuck around. Again, if he is persona non grata with the Death Eaters, the parents of the Slytherin kids would really not want him in charge of Slytherin. 3) Volde really ticked Snape off Pure and simple, Snape wasn't getting his way in the Death Eater crowd and decided the grass was greener on the other side. Doesn't really explain his hatred for Harry, other than hating his father, but it does explain why he's stuck around Hogwarts all this time. 4) Dumbledore made Snape an offer he can't refuse It's been speculated that Snape is part-vampire. Assume that's true for a second. We don't know what vampire mythology JKR is going to use -- for instance, what the effects of coffins, garlic, sunlight, crosses, etc...would be? -- but say that Dumbledore found a "cure" for Snape similar to the werewolf potion. Snape, flabbergasted by Dumbledore's kindness, decided to stick around. Again, the Harry-hate thing isn't as clear here, but Snape sticking around and not running for the hills makes more sense. I'm sure it will end up being something completely different, but hey, this is tons of fun Darrin Burnett -- Here's hoping Snape REALLY gets to kick some tail by the end of book 7 From aiz24 at hotmail.com Sat Jun 15 17:17:51 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 13:17:51 -0400 Subject: Chess clumsiness (was Ron and the Best Game of Chess ) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39895 violetbaudelaire wrote: >(BTW, to win the game in SS, Ron says he'll "take one step >forward and she'll take me" SS- US page 283. I hope this is >some error on JKR's part or an incomplete thought on Ron's, as >knights *never* move just one step in *any* direction, and Ron's >not much of a chess player if he thinks so.) Seeing wizard chess in action, small and large versions, in the celluloid-that-must-not-be-named gave me a new thought about this. Usually a chess player would say "I'll move my knight and she'll take me" or "I make my move," not "one step," because they don't step. But Ron is used to animate chess pieces. Maybe this is a linguistic turn wizard chess has taken from centuries of having pieces that are players; they do walk from spot to spot so that the term "move" has developed the synonym "step," both for pieces/players that can move in single steps and for knights, which can't. Amy Z tirelessly digging JKR out of her own holes ------------------------------------------------- Pascal avait son gouffre, avec lui se mouvant. -"Le Gouffre" (only Baudelaire poem I know ) ------------------------------------------------- _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jun 15 19:00:50 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 19:00:50 -0000 Subject: Dishwashers , Puppy hunts and werewolf excursions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39896 I wrote: >>> The situation changes when Sirius turns up missing and evidence is found that he planned to declare himself openly for Voldemort when the Potters died. Then Dumbledore wants Sirius found. The Ministry has far better resources for a puppy-hunt than Dumbledore has, once they bestir themselves. It doesn't make sense for Dumbledore to hold back any information that will help locate Black. Better to find him first, and *if* he turns out to be innocent of betraying the Potters, and *if* the Ministry is able to substantiate that Black is an animagus, then Dumbledore can worry about helping Black beat the unregistered animagus rap. <<< Pip: >Several questions with this - firstly, what evidence? What Fudge says is ''Black was tired of his double-agent role, he was ready to declare his support openly for you-know-who, and he seems to have planned this for the moment of the Potters' death.'' (PoA, p. 153, UK hardback) This could be taken to mean a) Fudge is indulging in after-the-event speculation b) Peter planted evidence that was found *after* the street fight. That the Ministry had evidence *before* the street fight is only one possiblity out of several - c), in fact.<<< So, according to a) and b) there never was a puppy-hunt. Fudge is giving the misleading impression that the Ministry was pursuing Black prior to his attack on the Muggles, when in fact they didn't have a clue. They not only didn't catch up with him first, they weren't chasing him at all. If it hadn't been for Pettigrew's supposed heroism, Black would have got away clean. Very ingenious, and in character for Fudge, except that the person in charge of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement at the time was the now discredited Barty Crouch, Sr. Why would Fudge be trying to make him look good now, twelve years after the fact? Or is Fudge covering for Dumbledore? Because this really makes Dumbledore look useless--he spends twelve hours or whatever totally involved (no multi-tasking for him!) in arranging some extra protection for the one person who already has more protection than anyone else, while a murderer is on the loose and a threat to innocent people, twelve of whom eventually die. Pip: >>I stand by the ambiguity of the canon. Dumbledore says 'an extraordinary achievement - not least keeping it quiet from me'(PoA p. 312) when he could have said 'an extraordinary acheivement - not least that it's one of the few things I've never found out' or something else equally unambiguous. (See post 39841)<< If Dumbledore only uses ambiguity when the truth is the opposite of his surface meaning, that's not actually very clever. I really must invite him over for a round of poker some time . I don't think Dumbledore would be above allowing a little whisper of doubt to exist in young Harry's mind about whether James et al had actually gotten clean away with it, if only to cover his chagrin that they had done so indeed. Miss Marple would understand. BTW, if Dumbledore didn't know about the Secret Keeper switch, what made him so sure that Pettigrew was really a Death Eater? Pettigrew could have been in hiding because he put the Death Eaters' best man in Azkaban, just as he claimed. Would Dumbledore allow a known Death Eater to murder a man whose only crime was choosing to live as a harmless rat? What troubles me about the whole MAGIC DISHWASHER scenario is that it's all predicated on the idea that Voldemort can't be killed while he's a disembodied spirit. Dumbledore has to force him to re-embody so that he can be destroyed, lest Dumbledore perish of old age before Harry is ready to carry on the fight. There must have been some way to destroy the disembodied Voldemort, or he would have had no reason to stay hidden. Perhaps it was a means, such as Dementors, that Dumbledore would never use. But the mere threat of it was enough to keep Voldemort in hiding. In the twelve years before Pettigrew returned to him, Voldemort managed to kill exactly one person. That situation doesn't change if Dumbledore dies. It changes if Voldemort comes back. Voldemort has to come back before he can resume his career as a ruthless killer. If he refrains from killing, Dumbledore has no interest in him. He doesn't care who rules the wizarding world and he doesn't care about immortality. As long as they're not aiding Voldemort, Flamel and Fudge and even Lucius Malfoy can do as they please with Dumbledore's blessing. Dumbledore isn't trying to prevent Voldemort from coming back as an immortal. He's trying to keep Voldemort from coming back at all. Applying Grey Wolf's strategy lesson, Voldemort would have tried his best scheme for coming back first. The first and best option was for a faithful servant to return to him...for this Voldemort was willing to endure ten horribly painful years of staving off death by sheer effort of will. He might have been lying about that, but why? Surely not to gain sympathy . Each successive scheme for coming back, including persuading someone to steal the Stone for him, using a possessed body to steal the Stone, etc. must have been less desireable than the one preceding it. Why would Dumbledore choose the best option to facilitate when Voldemort himself had given up on it? Voldemort is in successively worse positions after PS and CoS. Dumbledore was *winning*...why take the chance that Pettigrew will flee to Voldemort before Harry has a chance to spare his life? It nearly happened. Probably the only reason Pettigrew remained hiding in Hagrid's hut after faking his death again was that he couldn't get past the Dementors or didn't dare to try. Being an animagus was no protection from them, since they can drain the magic from a wizard if there are enough of them. It only works for Sirius because he knows, with doggish purity of heart, that he is innocent. Pettigrew knows no such thing. But all Pettigrew has to do is wait until Harry goes home again and the Dementor guards will leave. He came within a week of succeeding. He was discovered only by accident, when Hermione broke the jug. Finally, this last argument against Dumbledore the extremely grey. Dumbledore's relationships are built on trust. Those who have known him best and longest trust him most: Snape, McGonagall, and most tellingly Fawkes, whom only loyalty can tame. LeCarre spymasters may be revered, but they are not trusted except by the most gullible of their tools, and those never last long in the Spying Game. Pippin, wondering whether the grave yard post will refute all this. From fakeplastikcheese at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jun 15 18:21:19 2002 From: fakeplastikcheese at yahoo.co.uk (fakeplastikcheese) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 18:21:19 -0000 Subject: : Time-Turner In-Reply-To: <20020615033040.25730.qmail@web20803.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39897 Eclipse wrote: > However why don't Harry and Ron notice more > then one Hermoine? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the way I remember it, Harry and Ron don't look at the map during lesson-time, which is when there would be two Hermiones. (I'm new here, so sorry if to everyone else that's blindingly obvious!) --Buttercup, whose head hurts when she thinks about the Time-Turner From aiz24 at hotmail.com Sat Jun 15 19:18:27 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 15:18:27 -0400 Subject: Why Peter was at Hagrid's (was Dishwashers , Puppy hunts , etc.) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39898 Pippin wrote: >Probably the only reason Pettigrew remained >hiding in Hagrid's hut after faking his death again was that he >couldn't get past the Dementors or didn't dare to try. Being an >animagus was no protection from them, since they can drain the >magic from a wizard if there are enough of them. It only works for >Sirius because he knows, with doggish purity of heart, that he is >innocent. Pettigrew knows no such thing. But all Pettigrew has to >do is wait until Harry goes home again and the Dementor >guards will leave. He came within a week of succeeding. He >was discovered only by accident, when Hermione broke the jug. A problem with this solution is that Peter knows how to get past the Whomping Willow. He could easily evade the Dementors entirely, escape to Hogsmeade through the Shrieking Shack, and ingratiate himself into a family there, or for that matter go on to any place he likes. Hmmm . . . how's this? He's been hanging around the general Hogwarts/Hogsmeade area for the same reason he worm(tail)ed his way into the Weasley family: to keep an ear out for doings in the WW. When he hears about a meeting between Fudge and Dumbledore such as is going to occur that night, he wants to listen in. It's just the kind of conversation where (he imagines, possibly wrongly) he's likely to hear any scuttlebutt about Voldemort and, more importantly at the moment, Sirius. I also don't think there is any reason to imagine that Peter has been at Hagrid's for months. More likely, he has been skulking around the Forest, but invading Hagrid's for the same reason a regular rat would: human habitation is where the food is. He knows that it's a place Ron & Co. visit often, but he had every reason to think he was safe from them in the evening. (When they come to Hagrid's that time, they're out of bounds.) Amy Z _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sat Jun 15 19:33:35 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 19:33:35 -0000 Subject: Pretty Dragons (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39899 Another Sweeney Todd-derived filk ("You know me, bright ideas just pop into my head"), although Canonically-based this time. Pretty Dragons (from GoF, Chap. 19) To the tune of Pretty Women from Sondheim's Sweeney Todd Dedicated to Suzanne Chiles You can hear an excerpt of this song at: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000002W4L/qid=1024086221/sr=8- 4/ref=sr_8_4/103-6603494-7532658 and a MIDI at: http://www.broadwaymidi.com/shows/sweeney_todd.html THE SCENE: HAGRID, promising an important revelation, escorts HARRY (under his invisibility cloak) down a pathway away from Hogwarts. NOTE: For dramatic purposes, Madame Maxine does not enter until the very end of this scene. HAGRID (to Harry) You'll see, sir, before you carry out your task The challenge that you shall face So follow me down this winding lane My purposes I shall soon explain Why secrecy we must tight maintain So please keep your cloak in place HARRY (under his cloak) I'll try hard to keep apace Hagrid hums joyously as he walks along. Harry joins in by whistling along. HARRY (spoken) You're in a merry mood today, Mr. Hagrid. HAGRID (music) When I approach things breathing fire My heart cannot be vexed These creatures simply so inspire My soul to sing, like in a choir How much, how much I so admire HARRY They're Skrewts, sir? HAGRID More than Skrewts, sir HARRY What, sir? HARRY stops when he hears a deafening roar HAGRID Dragons. HARRY (stunned with fear) Ah yes ..dragons . HAGRID Pretty dragons. HARRY sees a compound in which four ferocious and violently struggling dragons are being held in preparation for the Triwizards Tournament. CHARLIE WEASLEY heads up a team of Wizards trying to subdue them. HAGRID resumes his humming; HARRY tries to whistle along, but his throat is now too parched and dry CHARLIE (to his team) Now then my friends Now use your stun spell Together, employ it Dragons can't be controlled with traps HAGRID (to Charlie) What types do you hold here Within your compound, sir? HARRY (to himself) Oh my! CHARLIE A Horntail, Welsh Green, Fireball, and Short-Snout, sir HARRY (to himself) I'll die! HAGRID (spoken) Such a pretty Horntail! HARRY (spoken) I'm deader than a doornail! CHARLIE (spoken, overhearing the invisible Harry) What? What was that? HAGRID (spoken, escorting Harry away from Charlie) Oh, nothing, sir, nothing, nothing. Kindly proceed. HAGRID gazes upon the dragons with a rapturous expression, while HARRY's invisible face bears a look of horror HAGRID (music) Pretty dragons Lacerating Breathing fire Nesting Pretty dragons Are a wonder Pretty dragons Rearing on their hind legs Or roaring with a blare Something in them Warms the air Pretty dragons . HARRY How they threaten .. HAGRID Savor the view . HARRY Roasting .. HAGRID Blaze forever . HARRY Burning fiercely .. HAGRID Pretty dragons .. BOTH Pretty dragons! Blowing away wizards or Growing fifty feet HAGRID Then they eat BOTH Even when they've eaten, They're famished, they somehow Can still remain Hungry Hungry HAGRID Ah, pretty dragons HARRY Oh, the terror! HAGRID All they've charred on HARRY Last-will writing . HAGRID Power soaring . HARRY Death encroaching HAGRID (simultaneous with below) How I feel awake! Glimpse of Heaven That I'm catching Pretty dragons, sir! HARRY (simultaneous with above) How they make this boy quake! Soon in Heaven I'll be living! Pretty dragons, sir! HAGRID (simultaneous with below) Pretty dragons, yes! Pretty dragons, sir! Pretty dragons! Pretty dragons, sir! HARRY (simultaneous with above) Pity Harry! Pity Harry! Pity Harry! Pity Harry! Enter Madame Maxine, who distracts HAGRID's attention enough that HARRY decides to run off so as not to be late for his rendezvous with Sirius. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From fiatincantatum at attbi.com Sat Jun 15 19:50:28 2002 From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 15:50:28 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-Turner In-Reply-To: <7d.28afdcca.2a3acafe@aol.com> Message-ID: <3D0B6244.30326.701ACB8@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 39900 On 14 Jun 2002 at 0:28, elfundeb at aol.com wrote: > But from everyone else's perspective, there's only one outcome of the last > hour, and that's that Hermione attended all three classes simultaneously. > Because the present unfolding of events takes into account an event that will > happen in the future, i.e., that at the end of the hour Hermione *will* use > the TT and repeat the hour. Under the time-turner concept, time itself is > omniscient. > > > Well, no, there's only one history, it involved HH1 and HH2 acting > simultaneously. HH1 see Harry2 and HH2 see HH1, so we know there's only one > sequence of events. And neither one of them is dead. And in the same > manner, each class period was only held once, but Hermione1 attended > Divination, Hermione2 attended Arithmancy, etc. Something that I think hasn't been mentioned that supports this is the missed Charms class. When Hermione misses a Charms class, Ron and Harry know about it and ask her where she went, since she'd been right next to them when they reached the door. Since at that point she'd already missed it, she couldn't then use the TT to go back and attend it, no matter how awful missing a class might seem to her. -- Fiat Incantatum fiatincantatum at attbi.com The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason. T. S. Eliot "Murder in the Cathedral" From heidi at barefootpuppets.com Sat Jun 15 20:23:36 2002 From: heidi at barefootpuppets.com (barefootpuppets) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 20:23:36 -0000 Subject: TBAY: How the Marauders Map works...explains problems Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39901 A thought on how the Marauder's map works... Questions: Why hadn't Peter/Scabbers been identified before? Why weren't the "future" H/H seen running around in the pumpkin patch in PoA? Perhaps you are only able to see people whom you have previously met/seen *or* interacted with. I think to all the times that the map has been used and this all fits. The only time that possibly conflicts with this is when Harry sees Barty Crouch, Jr. (aka Fake! Moody)..but even then it could be that since *Harry* had his wand stolen by Crouch, Jr., that they had an *interaction* of sorts. This explains why Lupin saw Peter, but nobody else (save, perhaps, Snape) did. It could also be argued that, due to, uh, fluctuations in the space- time continuum...or something, that Future!H/H weren't "seen" because they were not, in a sense, there yet. It takes a bit of mindbending, but I really don't *personally* take issue with their presence (or lack thereof). My two cents. Heidi R. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jun 15 20:24:24 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 20:24:24 -0000 Subject: Why Peter was at Hagrid's (was Dishwashers , Puppy hunts , etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39902 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: >> A problem with this solution is that Peter knows how to get past the Whomping Willow. He could easily evade the Dementors entirely, escape to Hogsmeade through the Shrieking Shack, << There's no way out of the Shack except through the Willow. Of course not, it's a prison for a werewolf. To quote Princess Leia, "They don't build them with multiple exits, you know." Those windows are blocked by more than boards. Otherwise Fred and George would have gotten in. The Marauders must have let Lupin out through the Tunnel. During the whole time Pettigrew is trapped in the Shack, he's looking vainly for some means of escape. But he knows he can't outrun Padfoot in the tunnel. If he knew of another way out, he would have transformed back and made a break for it. Possibly Scabbers could have tried to escape to Hogsmeade through the One-eyed witch, if he had had a wand. But it doesn't seem that he did. In any case he would have had to revert to human form to use it. And there are Dementors in the village too. Peter may have been hiding in the Castle for some time after he faked his death, but the attack on the Fat Lady, which meant Sirius hadn't been fooled in by the fake death, and the confiscation of the Map by Lupin which happened shortly afterward probably persuaded him to seek refuge elsewhere. Amy: > >I also don't think there is any reason to imagine that Peter has been at Hagrid's for months. More likely, he has been skulking around the Forest, but invading Hagrid's for the same reason a regular rat would: human habitation is where the food is.<< Peter has a very good reason for preferring Hagrid's hut to the forest: Lupin: "I watched you enter cross the grounds and enter Hagrid's hut. Twenty minutes later you left Hagrid and set off back toward the castel. But now you were accompanied by somebody else." The interior of Hagrid's hut is a dead spot. It doesn't show on the Map. The Forest does, because Crouch Jr. is able to find Crouch Sr. with it. It's odd that Fang didn't pay any attention to the rat in the pantry, but perhaps he recognized Peter from the Marauder Days and thought of him as a friend. Hagrid's hut is one place that's safe from predators, has a food supply, doesn't show on the Map, and isn't guarded by the Dementors. Pippin From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Sat Jun 15 20:39:50 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 20:39:50 -0000 Subject: Cuckold!Lucius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39903 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > Regardless, Snape did turn on the V-Meister, and I'm curious as to > the theories why. DISK World -- Draco is Severius' Kid! Snape went with Dumbledore in hopes of getting rid of Lucius for good. He is partial to Draco because he can't act like a father to him. He may still be Lucius' best friend, depending on if Lucius knows Snape betrayed the Death Eaters. Tex From elfundeb at aol.com Sat Jun 15 20:54:59 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 16:54:59 EDT Subject: Snape-Quirrelmort Conundrum/Time-Turner and Free Will Message-ID: <9b.28ff9389.2a3d03a3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39904 Eloise, on Voldemort's view of Snape's loyalty in PS/SS: You're right, of course. Even if he didn't understand the meaning at the time of the conversation, he seems to now. Although I think there's still a *little* ambiguity there. But of course it meshes entirely with Voldemort's knowing that (presumably) snape has 'left him for ever'. Alhough.....Voldemort does say, 'I *believe* [my emphasis] has left me for ever', which leaves a little leeway there, I think. Yes, there is some ambiguity, and as you point out, even at the graveyard Voldemort didn't know for sure about Snape. And it wasn't just because Snape didn't show up because, like Crouch Jr., he could not have apparated out of Hogwarts to get there. But, IIRC, this discussion arose out of the issue of whether Voldemort would have sent Pettigrew to Snape for the resurrection potion, and I think we seem to agree now that Voldemort suspected his loyalty too much at that point to have relied on him for the potion recipe. So his is where I've come out on the Snape-Quidemort conundrum: 1. Voldemort suspects Snape's loyalty before the beginning of PS/SS. I think he probably began to suspect Snape as soon as he learned that the Fidelius Charm had been put in place, because the existence of the charm implied that the "good" side had learned of the plan to kill the Potters, and Snape (under the double agent theory) would have had access to them. 2. Snape suspects early in PS/SS not only that Quirrell is after the Stone but that he wants it for Voldemort. So he uses very circumspect language with Quirrell; yet Quirrell understands perfectly well that Snape is telling him to leave the Stone alone. 3. Voldemort does not reveal himself to Snape, but rather observes him carefully to gauge his loyalty. He interprets Snape's actions in the same way that Quirrell does. There's still some room for doubt because as a double agent, Snape may need to appear to be supporting Dumbledore in order to protect his cover. However, the fact that Snape tried to thwart Quirrell's attempt to kill Harry should be very suspicious to Voldemort -- Dumbledore was not at that particular Quidditch match and nobody else seems to have noticed what Quirrell was doing. So, at the end of PS/SS, Snape's loyalty is still in the *suspect* category. And it remains that way at the end of GoF. Eloise: But you know what intrigues me? Why couldn't Quirrell get the stone out of the mirror, if he wanted it for Voldemort and not himself? My answer to this is that although Quirrell wanted the Stone for Voldemort, he also wanted to get it for selfish motives - by getting the stone and presenting Voldemort with the means of immortality, Quirrell hopes to gain favor from Voldemort, unlike Harry, who only wanted to prevent the Stone from falling into Voldemort's hands. He didn't want recognition or glory; he goes after the Stone because if Voldemort gets the Stone and rises again "there won't be any Hogwarts . . . .D'you think he'll leave you and your families alone . . . ." (ch. 16, p. 270 US). It's not a perfect distinction, but their motives aren't quite the same. Random Monkey asked, regarding my statement that: >I don't think it's impossible for Harry to pick > up the Invisibility Cloak (that would perhaps fall into the same category as > killing one's own other self, which Hermione clearly states has happened) She did? It sounded to me like she just thought it was a possibility. Can you cite the canon for me? In PoA ch. 21 (p. 399, US paperback) Hermione says, as part of her objections to Harry's suggestion that they just run into Hagrid's and grab Scabbers, "Professor McGonagall told me what awful things have happened when wizards have meddled with time. . . . Loads of them ended up killing their past or future selves by mistake!" By this statement, JKR suggests that by traveling back in time it is possible for the time traveler to act inconsistently with known events, though she does not tell us what the consequences were, either for the time traveler or for the witnesses to the inconsistent events. This statement seems to support Random Monkey's first thesis of what the Time-Turner does: There are two theories, that I know of. One is that if you see the future, you can change it. Therefore, if you go to the past, knowing the future, you can change the past, and, therefore, the future. This is a tough one, because it brings in all that "go back and kill your grandfather" type stuff. But I think that what actually happens is more consistent with Random Monkey's second explanation of events: Therefore, if you go back in time, knowing the future, you can't do anything. in fact, anything you do to try to change the future (or the past) will probably result in what you didn't want happening. For example: You see in the future that, let's say, the baby starts crying. You run upstairs and try to prevent whatever will make her cry, but on your way into her room, you fall and hit the floor, making a crash. The baby starts crying because you fell. Setting aside what Hermione says she was told, which is inconsistent with this theory, everything about the nine-to-midnight events supports it. Everything happened at once, HH1 and HH2 were present in both versions of the events, and they did the same things. There is only one history, in which HH1 and HH2 each were actors, and in which they brought about a single outcome: Sirius and Buckbeak were freed, Pettigrew escaped, and Snape hung out at the Shack in Harry's invisibility cloak. And this leads me to Eloise: Who had a significant thought regarding the TT, whilst lying in bed listening to the Dawn Chorus this morning, but can't remember it now! I know it was to do with its implications for free will. If I stop thinking about it, maybe it will come back. And Marilyn: If someone decides that they intentionally want to see if they can screw with fate, i.e. Harry goes after the Invisibility Cloak, even though he thinks it was supposed to be picked up by Snape, as fate dictated the first time around, then would his memory suddenly change to fit with a history of the time in the SS without Snape sneaking in? Or is fate of such a nature as something would prevent Harry from being able to get the cloak? Hermione did grab him and try to stop it. Maybe that was fate! I have always rebelled against the idea of "fate" or predestination controlling our actions. And given the emphasis in canon on personal choice, I doubt JKR likes the concept of fate any better than I do. I like Dumbledore's phrasing much better: "The consequences of our actions are always so complicated, so diverse . . . ." But I'm going to try, as best I can, to reconcile the concepts of fate and free will in the context of the Time-Turner. In the usual course of events, both in the Potterverse and in ours, time moves forward consistently from earlier to later, and we can look back but not forward. So when a person becomes aware of a future event, it is said to be "fated" to happen. Another way to look at this, however, would be to view history as already complete. In other words, the concepts of "past" and "future" merely represent our limited ability to view history. The concept of time travel in the Potterverse under Random Monkey's second thesis seems to take this view; it presupposes that what happens in the future (i.e., that Harry and Hermione will use the Time-Turner) already exists, because HH2 are present in the HH1 version of events. So in one sense we are all "predestined" to do whatever will happen in the future. However, all of that history will be created by individuals exercising their free will, so the fact that what will happen in the future is known does not negate the exercise of free will. The only time free will might become lost is where a person travels through time, as Hermione and Harry do. Because they already exist in that earlier time, and they are aware of the history of that time, they are forbidden to do anything inconsistent with that history. Under Random Monkey's second thesis, it is literally impossible for HH2 to act inconsistently with the history that's been created already. Nevertheless, Harry2 retains his free will to *attempt* to meddle with history. It's just that as events actually unfold, something will happen to prevent the event Harry2 sought from occurring. But it isn't "fate" dictating events any more than any other event in history is dictated by "fate." Knowing what will happen in the future may influence our choices, but they remain our own choices. Maybe another way of looking at it is to consider time itself to be omniscient, i.e., it takes into account everything that has happened in the past and will happen in the future, so in the end everything will fit together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. But we humans, limited in our understanding, cannot hope to understand how those pieces fit together. What I like about Random Monkey's second thesis is that it makes history consistent. So if Harry tried to run into Hagrid's to grab Scabbers, something would've happened -- maybe he would simply have tripped on a tree root and been knocked out -- to prevent the inconsistent history from occurring. But Harry2 is still exercising his free will in deciding to try to alter events. Or if they changed their minds about returning to the hospital wing, something would have occurred to get them there. But that doesn't negate free will; its just an obstacle to the achievement of our objectives. So what to make of Hermione's remark about people killing their present or future selves? Or changing any event? Is it a FLINT, put into the text by JKR to keep Harry from doing things she didn't want him to do? Or is that just something people are told when they're given a Time-Turner for its in terrorem effect? I have no idea. Perhaps what the Time-Turner experience is really teaching Harry is that we must live with the consequences of our actions, and that it is pointless to waste time regretting the things we might have done, but did not; instead, we should focus our energies on the choices we must make in the future, because in the normal course of events that is how everyone, including witches and wizards, must live our lives. I've rambled on long enough now. Debbie, thanking Eloise for prompting her to think about this [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Sat Jun 15 20:55:29 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 16:55:29 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: the Marauder's Map Message-ID: <136.f626217.2a3d03c1@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39905 I always figured that the map showed F&G the "I solemly swear I am up to no good" bit to say. When Snape yelled at the map, it responded by insulting him. IMO, the map senses who's trying to see it, and gives out the correct saying to those who want to have some fun. Does that make any sense? *Chelsea* From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Jun 15 22:24:58 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 22:24:58 -0000 Subject: Ron and the Best Game of Chess Ever In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39906 VioletBaudelaire wrote: > After reading thoughts about whether Ron could be duped into > unintentionally betraying Harry, I thought I would take some time > to examine the chess game from SS, as we know that Ron is > good at chess; so good that it is the one thing he can beat > Hermione at. > > Someone may be able to hoodwink Ron into a betrayal, but I > think this would be difficult. Ron, while feeling overshadowed by > Harry's fame, would give sacrifice himself to protect Harry. > Possibly Ron will become a martyr. I have expressed this view before, from a slightly different point of view. When consideriong who's going to die in future books, I believe Ron will, in a martyr sort of way, that will, nonetheless, allow Harry to defeat Voldemort, just like it happens in the famous chess game in PS. This would also accomplish Ron's desire: to surpass his brothers actions, by becoming a hero/matyr. I've even coined an acronym: RICK'S THE BOSS (Ron Identified with the Chess Knight: Surpasses his Triumfant, Heroic or Excellent Brothers Only by Self-Sacrifice). > (as an offshoot: Hermione says not all wizards are > good at logic- who are these wizards? And if she's so good at > logic, why isn't she a better chess player?) > > -Submitted for your approval by VioletBaudelaire Hermione reads big books when in bed. I assume that the book "Famous wizards and witches" must include not only biographys and how they colaborated to the wizard world (WW) (read: reason they were included in the book), but must also include descriptions of what they were like and their logical capabilities (it's not so strange: I've got a book with similar content on scientists). Looking for a specific example? We don't know of any, but, for all we know, Sprout is no good at logic. Or maybe she is. (Note: except for Snape, you can put any adult wizard name there and almost surely fits) On the second question, don't confuse logic and strategy, someone can be good at one and bad at the other (namely, me: I resolve logical puzzles with ease, but my strategies tend to be poor and specially predictable, which means I'm not good at chess). Logic is the capability of solving puzzles ("discovering the rules"), while strategy is the capability to create a sequence of events that will give you an advantage ("using the rules to the best advantage"). You may look at a chess game as a puzzle to be resolved, but that's not enough, since you have to discover what your opponent will do. On the other hand, a good strategy will only work in one puzzle, and without logical thinking, you cannot adapt to new puzzles (unfortunately, I cannot think of a good example of this case. If interested, mail me privately and I'll devote extra time. It's late, and I'm sleepy). Thus, Hermione is good at logic (seing a problem, normally for the first time, and finding the way to solve it), but is not as good strategist as Ron who, given a chess game, can see far into the future and plan not only what he's going to do to win, but what his opponent is going to try, so he can block it. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From siskiou at earthlink.net Sat Jun 15 22:50:10 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 15:50:10 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron and the Best Game of Chess Ever In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <191161410600.20020615155010@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39907 Hi, Saturday, June 15, 2002, 3:24:58 PM, grey_wolf_c wrote: > This would also accomplish Ron's desire: to surpass his brothers > actions, by becoming a hero/matyr. I've even coined an acronym: RICK'S > THE BOSS (Ron Identified with the Chess Knight: Surpasses his > Triumfant, Heroic or Excellent Brothers Only by Self-Sacrifice). I sure hope Ron doesn't die in the end. Maybe it'll go the same way as in the chess game, where he is *willing* to die for his friends, but fortunately doesn't. IMO, he's *already* done plenty of heroic things, but doesn't seem to realize this and it's not really acknowledged (well, getting a lot of house points *is* an acknowledgement, but his family sure doesn't seem to think it's something to talk about or be proud of very much). I wonder if Ron really wants to surpass his brothers or if he just wants to be noticed for things he does. He does seem to fall between the cracks a bit in the Weasley family, IMO. And which ones of his brothers would you see as especially heroic? Charlie, because he works with dragons? (at least I Think it's Charlie, but don't have time to check, atm) Just wondering... -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Jun 15 23:32:59 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 23:32:59 -0000 Subject: Dishwashers (long)/Darrins Fluffy question (one-liner) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39908 Pippin wrote: > So, according to a) and b) there never was a puppy-hunt. Fudge > is giving the misleading impression that the Ministry was > pursuing Black prior to his attack on the Muggles, when in fact > they didn't have a clue. They not only didn't catch up with him > first, they weren't chasing him at all. If it hadn't been for > Pettigrew's supposed heroism, Black would have got away clean. Very > ingenious, and in character for Fudge, except that the person in > charge of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement at the > time was the now discredited Barty Crouch, Sr. Why would > Fudge be trying to make him look good now, twelve years after > the fact? It makes the MoM look better (not especially good, mind you, since they are partially responsible for the 12 muggles), but, as you say, it's in-charater for Fudge to take any oportunity to make the MoM shine, as if they really did their jobs. > Or is Fudge covering for Dumbledore? Because this > really makes Dumbledore look useless--he spends twelve > hours or whatever totally involved (no multi-tasking for him!) in > arranging some extra protection for the one person who already > has more protection than anyone else, while a murderer is on > the loose and a threat to innocent people, twelve of whom > eventually die. Dumbledore was multitasking: as well as looking for the ancient magics to protect what is, after all, a delicate object (do you really want me to do a post on the 1001 ways of killing a baby? I thought not) from any number of DEs possibly looking for a way to take their ex-master's place, he manages to talk to Hagrid and give him instructions and also finds time to *create* the protection (finding the correct ritual was possibly harder than putting it up, since it didn't involve standing stones or anything similarly ancient. I'm really starting to wonder what the "ancient magic" is, you know). > BTW, if Dumbledore didn't know about the Secret Keeper switch, > what made him so sure that Pettigrew was really a Death Eater? > Pettigrew could have been in hiding because he put the Death > Eaters' best man in Azkaban, just as he claimed. Would > Dumbledore allow a known Death Eater to murder a man whose > only crime was choosing to live as a harmless rat? OK, I know the post was big and all that, but I *did* cover this one: Azkaban is full of DEs saying that Pettigrew is a traitor to Voldemort, since he caused his downfall while being secret keeper. Hagrid has been there. So have other people, some of which may have even got out alive. It only takes one, after all. > What troubles me about the whole MAGIC DISHWASHER > scenario is that it's all predicated on the idea that Voldemort can't > be killed while he's a disembodied spirit. Dumbledore has to > force him to re-embody so that he can be destroyed, lest > Dumbledore perish of old age before Harry is ready to carry on > the fight. > > There must have been some way to destroy the disembodied > Voldemort, or he would have had no reason to stay hidden. > Perhaps it was a means, such as Dementors, that Dumbledore > would never use. But the mere threat of it was enough to keep > Voldemort in hiding. In the twelve years before Pettigrew returned > to him, Voldemort managed to kill exactly one person. That > situation doesn't change if Dumbledore dies. It changes if > Voldemort comes back. There are several answers to this one, all of them based on the idea that the vapour form is immortal. But, let's start with a little canon (or Marina will come around throwing insults of uncanonity at me): (GoF, ch. 33, Sp. ed., liberal tranlation) "I, that have gone further than anyone in the road to immortality. You know my objective: conquer death. And then I was put to test, and it resulted that one of my experiments worked... because I didn't die eventhough the curse should have killed me." There are disadvantages for Voldemort while in this state: he is powerless (except for possesion, which he uses to survive), and his strenght is close to none, and is seeping away. Also, his lack of corporality prevents him from doing anything appart from scheeming. There are, on the other hand, advantages. He cannot be traped, nor killed, and can indeed "live" for as long as he wants by possesing bodies of animals or people. And he can still scheme, which is what makes him dangerous. As I've said several times in the last week, there must be a way for Voldemort to regain his body that will make him invincible, and Dumbledore knows what the method is (the famous magic dishwasher). Dumbledore must therefore devise a plan that will have Voldemort use any other method appart from the dishwasher before Voldemort realises he's one dishwasher from total power. Thus, Dumbledore finds the potion, basicaly good, but with a fatal flaw: a smallprint letter that isn't included in most of the potion's descriptions (never use muggle bones and servants with lifedebts to the enemy when using an enemy with love shield) since the chances of that happening are so scarce that no-one though it possible. (The smallprint is the product of a tired mind. Not to be taken too seriously until ratified by a defender of MAGIC DISHWASHER with full mental capabilities. Usable as an example. May contain nuts). > Voldemort has to come back before he can resume his career > as a ruthless killer. If he refrains from killing, Dumbledore has > no interest in him. He doesn't care who rules the wizarding world > and he doesn't care about immortality. As long as they're not > aiding Voldemort, Flamel and Fudge and even Lucius Malfoy can > do as they please with Dumbledore's blessing. Dumbledore > isn't trying to prevent Voldemort from coming back as an > immortal. He's trying to keep Voldemort from coming back at all. I'm not sure where you're going with this (which means: is it aa attack against MAGIC DISHWASHER?). Dumbledore has been biding his time, since there was a stalemate, waiting for Voldemort to make his first move. During that plan, he has devised plans, discarted the ones that were too reckless, dangerous, etc. and ordering the rest in the A,B,C plan chain. He's also been searching and destroying all the enchanted dishwashers he could put his hands on. He's also been very busy running the MoM from Hogwarts, and I'd imagine that putting as many difficulties in Lucius (and other corrupt politicians) path as he could manage. > Applying Grey Wolf's strategy lesson, Voldemort would have tried > his best scheme for coming back first. The first and best option > was for a faithful servant to return to him...for this Voldemort was > willing to endure ten horribly painful years of staving off death by > sheer effort of will. He might have been lying about that, but why? > Surely not to gain sympathy . > > Each successive scheme for coming back, including > persuading someone to steal the Stone for him, using a > possessed body to steal the Stone, etc. must have been less > desireable than the one preceding it. Why would Dumbledore > choose the best option to facilitate when Voldemort himself had > given up on it? The best (read: easiest) option was the stone. We don't know how, but if Voldemort had managed to get hold of it, he probably would've been immortal (maybe a non-flawed version of the potion, with the stone as main or only component). When that didn't work, he went for the next one, in *easiness*: the potion, for which he needed another servant (the first one was a little burnt out). If he had read a little more about the potion or if his copy of the incantation had included the smallprint, he would have started looking for an apropiate dishwasher (not as easy, but safer), but he didn't, so he started to colect all the components... and the rest, is history. > Voldemort is in successively worse positions after PS and CoS. > Dumbledore was *winning*...why take the chance that Pettigrew > will flee to Voldemort before Harry has a chance to spare his > life? He may be loosing battles, but he cannot loose the war. If nothing else, he can wait for two (wizard) generations to pass while he lives off the animals in Albania, and then use another suitable vessel to look for an enchanted dishwasher, now that Dumbledore is dead and everyone else has forgotten about him. What happened to the argument "Pettigrew was there because Hagrid had caught him trying to scape from Hogwarts"? I never did know if it got refuted. If it did, I'll think of another reason for Peter to be there. I sort of liked the idea of Hagrid getting hold of Voldemort's wand... I also liked AmyZ and your solution. Well, whatever works. > Finally, this last argument against Dumbledore the extremely > grey. Dumbledore's relationships are built on trust. Those who > have known him best and longest trust him most: Snape, > McGonagall, and most tellingly Fawkes, whom only loyalty can > tame. LeCarre spymasters may be revered, but they are not > trusted except by the most gullible of their tools, and those never > last long in the Spying Game. I haven't read LeCarre, but I *have* read Tom Clancy, where the good guys always in because the main good characters trusts each other. And remember: keep your friend close, and your enemies even closer... so you can see when they're going to make their move. > Pippin, wondering whether the grave yard post will refute all this. We'll just have to wait and see, won't we? As always, my parries here are subjct to change if Pip's theories disagree with any of my points. ----------------------- Darrin Burnett asked: -- Whatever happened to Fluffy, anyway? JKR tells us (in an interview, I think) that he's living in the forest. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From erectionpants at yahoo.com Sat Jun 15 21:15:46 2002 From: erectionpants at yahoo.com (catja3000) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 21:15:46 -0000 Subject: The Betrayer? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39909 Neville thoughts! Darrin: > > >Neville, with his general > > > chuckleheadedness (and his desire for > > > revenge when he > > >finally > > >figures > > >out about his folks). Random Monkey: > > > > That I can't see. Why would he give > information in revenge? If > > her > > realized what he was doing, why would he think > that wasgetting > > even? > > If he didn't why would he give information? He > might do > something > > k=like the lost passwords in PoA, but he > couldn't do it > > intentionally. > > Darrin: > > Think about Neville. He's a courageous boy, but > a tad short on > talent > and brains. He tried to fight Crabbe and Goyle > at once? Tried to > stop > Harry, Ron and Hermione by himself? Needs to > pick his spots a > bit > better. > > What would a boy with loads of courage and a > thimbleful of > talent > do > if he found out that his parents were mentally > maimed by the Big > V? > He'd go charging out as fast as he could and > follow anyone who > CLAIMED to be willing to help. > > Again, not intentional, which is the key point > of my post. > Neville > would never be an intentional bad guy, but his > eagerness > combined > with a lack of common sense is a dangerous > combination. > Catja: I was always under the impression that he knew exactly what happened to his folks. He knows it was the Cruciatus Curse, and is intelligent enough to figure out that Voldemort and/or his followers probably had something to do with it, without having to be told specifically. He may not know names, or the exact circumstances (leaving aside all "he was present" speculation), but somebody somewhere along the line probably reassured him that the DEs who did this to his parents are in Azkaban and can't hurt him. Now if the Lestranges get released... However, Neville does not really seem the type to go rushing off without any thought. All of his brave/stupid actions have been *defensive* -- he isn't impulsive and confident like Harry and Ron. I know I'm not alone in thinking that JKR is setting up Neville as sort of a Pettigrew parallel -- with the crucial difference that Neville is no coward, and has reserves of strength that are just beginning to be realized. It's been argued that the Trio plus Neville are in some ways the refined and improved versions of the Marauders, who will correct the mistakes of the previous generation. Voldie might choose to go after Neville, thinking him a Pettigrew-style coward, but Neville is going to surprise everyone (including himself) by fighting fiercely. It would be a nice close to the circle if Book 7 ends the way Book 1 did, with Neville the surprise hero. Catja Who loves her some Neville. From bard7696 at aol.com Sat Jun 15 21:02:33 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 21:02:33 -0000 Subject: Cuckold!Lucius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39910 Tex said: > > DISK World -- Draco is Severius' Kid! > > Snape went with Dumbledore in hopes of getting rid of Lucius for good. > > He is partial to Draco because he can't act like a father to him. > > He may still be Lucius' best friend, depending on if Lucius knows > Snape betrayed the Death Eaters. > Tune in next time for -- As the Time Turner Turns. If this is a joke, good one. If this is serious, of course, the great flaw is that turning on Voldemort would hardly be the way to impress Narcissa Malfoy. Besides, isn't Draco a spitting image of his father? Darrin Burnett -- Maybe Hagrid is Hermione's father! They both have bushy hair! From goddess at yaoigoddess.com Sat Jun 15 21:37:33 2002 From: goddess at yaoigoddess.com (Rochelle) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 17:37:33 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] So, why did Snape turn on Voldermort? References: Message-ID: <3D0BB39D.D6B1A42B@yaoigoddess.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39911 darrin_burnett wrote: > > Regardless, Snape did turn on the V-Meister, and I'm curious as to > the theories why. *g* So far, I've devoted one prologue plus nine chapters to explaining just that. (A link to the story is in my sig.) You might say I've given the matter some thought. > > 2) He was trying to save Lily, not James. > I've read some fan sites that speculate Snape was in love with Lily. > Go with that. He found out Volderoni was going after the Potters and > he didn't want Lily killed. The "Snape was in love with Lily" theory's been touted so often and with such great enthusiasm that, for awhile, I assumed it was practically canon. After all, I haven't read that many chat transcripts; I wondered it, maybe, JKR had said this herself and I missed it. But thinking about it on my own, this idea DOES have some flaws. 1) It's just too simple, obvious and common. How many times have we seen this happen? Even in the movie Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (fun movie, BTW, though not exactly great cinema), Shredder hated Splinter's master because -- you guessed it -- Shredder wanted his woman. I've come to expect the unexpected from Harry Potter books. Taking such a well-traveled road seems like a bit of a cop-out to me. 2) Unless I'm missing something here, there is no evidence whatsoever that Snape had any feelings for Lily one way or the other. In PoA, Remus made the off-handed guess that Snape was jealous of James's talent for Quidditch. [PoA, p.357 hardcover] Dumbledore said explicity in SS that Snape hated James because James saved his life [SS, p.300 hardcover] Apparently, it hasn't crossed anyone's mind that Lily was a factor. If it had, I don't see any reason to keep it a secret. Going off on a bit of a tangent, my guess is that the reason for Snape's hatred of James is something that no one wants to think about: maybe James did something to deserve it. Snape strikes me as the type who was best known as... well... the Class Freak, creepy and entirely too smart for his own good. Even Sirius Black concedes that Snape is pretty bright, and Snape would have to be an oddball sort of genius to have known "more curses when he arrived than half the kids in seventh year" [GoF, p.531 hardcover]. I know from experience that weird, over-smart kids are NOT treated well by their classmates, especially the popular ones. To me, it seems more than possible that the Marauders started this whole mess themselves, but no one wants to tell Harry that. It's easier to let him keep his perfect image of his father instead of telling him that James and his friends could sometimes be bullies. But back to the topic at hand. > 4) Dumbledore made Snape an offer he can't refuse That ties into my own thoughts a bit, but not in quite the way you've postulated. We know from canon that Snape DOES have a conscience. Otherwise, he probably wouldn't have gone to so much trouble to save Harry's life in SS. Since he has a conscience, he can feel guilt, and guilt can be an excellent motivator. The way I rendered things, Snape became a Death Eater in the first place because of... well... a lot of things (it's a little complicated), but after he got in, he realized he'd made a mistake. He didn't want to face up to this until the actions he performed in Voldemort's service finally became too much for his conscience to bear. The offer that Dumbledore made to him was the chance to atone for his sins. > It's been speculated that Snape is part-vampire. Assume that's true > for a second. We don't know what vampire mythology JKR is going to > use -- for instance, what the effects of coffins, garlic, sunlight, > crosses, etc...would be? -- but say that Dumbledore found a "cure" > for Snape similar to the werewolf potion. If Snape IS part vampire, you might be on to something. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. :) *Rochelle, who probably thinks too much... or, sometimes, not enough. *g* -- http://www.YaoiGoddess.com/ --Long Live the Slash. http://www.fanfiction.net/profile.php?userid=26023 --My fics on FFN. http://www.YaoiGoddess.com/light/ --Dying of the Light: A history of Severus Snape, Dark Arts prodigy turned Death Eater. ------------------ From crana at ntlworld.com Sat Jun 15 22:17:11 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 23:17:11 +0100 Subject: How much does Neville know? References: Message-ID: <002001c214ba$6c76e900$e53768d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 39912 darrin_burnett wrote: > > < > chuckleheadedness (and his desire for revenge when he finally > figures > > out about his folks).>> > > How much does Neville know? We know he knows what state his parents are in, and it doesn't seem that subconscious when he volunteers the curse in Defense against the Dark Arts. Dumbledore says Neville has a right to tell people about his parents when he wants to... implying that he knows what happened to them? Or does he just know they are insane, but doesn't know why? Rosie From ntg85 at prodigy.net Sun Jun 16 00:07:18 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 00:07:18 -0000 Subject: The Betrayer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39913 Darrin_Burnett: > I'd never suggest that Ron would WILLINGLY betray his friend, but all > I'm saying is that a jealous fellow is easy to manipulate. You have a quite valid point, and when you state it that way, I can see it happening... But for the love of cheese dip, please noooo, Jo! But as I said, I'm excessively CRABby... > What would a boy with loads of courage and a thimbleful of talent do > if he found out that his parents were mentally maimed by the Big V? > He'd go charging out as fast as he could and follow anyone who > CLAIMED to be willing to help. Ah, _now_ I see what you mean! Perhaps your theories just needed fleshing out a bit. That is quite possible... I feel morbid talking (as it were) about who will betray who. I'm too much like Fudge sometimes: I want to bury my head in the sand and pretend it's still the good ol' days. The Random Monkey, who opposes Mary Sue in all her forms, unless she's with Ron. From ntg85 at prodigy.net Sun Jun 16 00:35:20 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 00:35:20 -0000 Subject: Cuckold!Lucius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39914 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "tex23236" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > > Regardless, Snape did turn on the V-Meister, and I'm curious as to > > the theories why. Ever been to Theory Bay? A wonderful, beautiful harbour full of boats of all shapes and sizes, each one a theory, and the people on board supporters. And then there's George... Anyway, there's a whole section on Snapetheories. It takes a looong time to load: you've been warned. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/A dmin%20Files/hypotheticalley.htm The Random Monkey, who is enthralled with shiny things From ntg85 at prodigy.net Sun Jun 16 00:53:43 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 00:53:43 -0000 Subject: Evil Lupin/McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39915 On Evil!Mcgonagall: > > Mysteryreefer: > > > > > OK, I read all the posts regarding Evil Minerva and I have 2 > > > questions-- if she is indeed so powerful, why couldn't she > > > conjure up a patronus to ward off the dementor from Barty Jr.? Dogberry: > It could be that it happened too fast for her to stop. She had to > stay with Crouch Jnr, if Fudge came in, she may not have seen the > dementor in time. Remember that Snape saw it as well. > Also, Lupin said that many grown wizards have trouble with the charm, > Mcgonagall said so herself, that she is not the best at charms in POA > when she said that she would take the Firebolt to Flitwick. But Barty Jr. knew a *lot* of stuff. One of the main arguments of the Evil!Fudge crew is that Fudge purposely led the Dementor to Barty in order to save the heinies of a lot of DEs. If McGonagall were evil, she would have let the Dementor kiss Junior, then pretended to be shocked. On Evil!Lupin, David_Burnett: > For sheer practicality, I'm not sure JKR turns someone that popular > bad. It's simply not good business. :) Have you ever been to somelace like Fanfiction.net? Do a search or Severus Snape and see how many Mary Sues (or even Gary Stus) you find. (I don't know why I bring this up, since I am adamantly against LYCANTHROPEs. In fact, I think Evil!McGonagall is silly, too. I just don't like theories to be disproved with faulty evidence. That, and I like to argue. ;^_^) The Random Monkey, who, for sme reason, seems to love arguing with David From bard7696 at aol.com Sun Jun 16 01:15:42 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 01:15:42 -0000 Subject: How much does Neville know? In-Reply-To: <002001c214ba$6c76e900$e53768d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39916 Rosie wrote: > > > > How much does Neville know? We know he knows what state his parents are in, > and it doesn't seem that subconscious when he volunteers the curse in > Defense against the Dark Arts. Dumbledore says Neville has a right to tell > people about his parents when he wants to... implying that he knows what > happened to them? Or does he just know they are insane, but doesn't know > why? > > Rosie We do not know exactly what Neville knows, but one theory that I find entirely credible says that Neville had a Memory Charm placed on him to block out the nastier details. It has been established that memory-affecting spells affect that person's mental performance -- Bertha Jorkins, by name -- so I think this is an excellent way to explain why Neville is so forgetful and nervous. Now, to poke a hole in mine own theory -- when the memory charm is broken, perhaps it follows that Neville's handicaps will disappear as well, rendering him a very talented young wizard, the son of Aurors, after all. I do not wish to get horribly bogged down in the individuals I used as examples. My overriding point is that the betrayer in the scenario may not necessarily be a bad person -- just an easily manipulated one. Darrin Burnett Could find Memory Charms all kinds of useful... From bard7696 at aol.com Sun Jun 16 01:42:53 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 01:42:53 -0000 Subject: So, why did Snape turn on Voldermort? In-Reply-To: <3D0BB39D.D6B1A42B@yaoigoddess.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39917 > darrin_burnett wrote: > > > > Regardless, Snape did turn on the V-Meister, and I'm curious as to > > the theories why. > Rochelle wrote: > *g* So far, I've devoted one prologue plus nine chapters to explaining > just that. (A link to the story is in my sig.) You might say I've given > the matter some thought. DB: I've read the first few chapters of your story, and I think the introduction of a specific religion -- and how Wizards who were Muggles deal with that phenomena -- is fascinating and well-done but I have to say I dislike the introduction of homosexuality into the fray. Sexuality -- bisexuality, heterosexuality, or homosexuality -- has been very lightly touched in the world of HP. The kids are third- years before we even get a hint of raging hormones and fourth-years before we get the kind of chaste bickering that comes with early sexuality. Not to delve too deeply into forbidden topics like the movies, but this straying from reality in JKR's world is the main reason young Daniel Radcliffe probably will not be able to do all seven movies. Young boys change mostly between 11 and 12 in the real world, and having seen the 30-second teaser for the film CoS, it is obviously happening to Radcliffe. Harry Potter, on the other hand, is nearly 14 before we get a sense of him hitting puberty. To me, that's just one more of the rules JKR has introduced. She's taken us back to a time when the equivalent of American fifth- and sixth-graders were not exploring their sexuality. I rarely read fanfiction of any pop culture phenomena, and seeing such deviations from the established world always startles me. As I said, the introduction of Judaism -- and I'm certain there are Irish Catholic and Protestant students going through similar changes - - is interesting. > > > > > 2) He was trying to save Lily, not James. > > I've read some fan sites that speculate Snape was in love with Lily. > > Go with that. He found out Volderoni was going after the Potters and > > he didn't want Lily killed. > Rochelle: > The "Snape was in love with Lily" theory's been touted so often and with > such great enthusiasm that, for awhile, I assumed it was practically > canon. After all, I haven't read that many chat transcripts; I wondered > it, maybe, JKR had said this herself and I missed it. But thinking > about it on my own, this idea DOES have some flaws. > > 1) It's just too simple, obvious and common. How many times have we > seen this happen? Even in the movie Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (fun > movie, BTW, though not exactly great cinema), Shredder hated Splinter's > master because -- you guessed it -- Shredder wanted his woman. I've > come to expect the unexpected from Harry Potter books. Taking such a > well-traveled road seems like a bit of a cop-out to me. > DB: I am not well-versed in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle canon, I'm afraid. :) On the other hand, Snape's hatred has to come from somewhere, and unrequited love is as good a reason as any. All cliches start with truth. > 2) Unless I'm missing something here, there is no evidence whatsoever > that Snape had any feelings for Lily one way or the other. In PoA, > Remus made the off-handed guess that Snape was jealous of James's talent > for Quidditch. [PoA, p.357 hardcover] Dumbledore said explicity in SS > that Snape hated James because James saved his life [SS, p.300 > hardcover] Apparently, it hasn't crossed anyone's mind that Lily was a > factor. If it had, I don't see any reason to keep it a secret. > DB: I agree with what I think you're saying here. I hardly see Snape as the type to be worrying much about Quidditch. And earlier on page 300 of SS, Dumbledore says: "Well, they did rather detest each other. Not unlike yourself and Mr. Malfoy. And then, your father did something Snape could never forgive." He saved Severus' life. They hated each other prior to the Prank. Perhaps the hatred is as simple as Harry and Draco. They got off on the wrong foot, have naturally different ideas about wizardry in general, and are headed down different paths. I dislike the idea of it being that simple, but... perhaps it could be. > Going off on a bit of a tangent, my guess is that the reason for Snape's > hatred of James is something that no one wants to think about: maybe > James did something to deserve it. > > Snape strikes me as the type who was best known as... well... the Class > Freak, creepy and entirely too smart for his own good. Even Sirius > Black concedes that Snape is pretty bright, and Snape would have to be > an oddball sort of genius to have known "more curses when he arrived > than half the kids in seventh year" [GoF, p.531 hardcover]. > > I know from experience that weird, over-smart kids are NOT treated well > by their classmates, especially the popular ones. To me, it seems more > than possible that the Marauders started this whole mess themselves, but > no one wants to tell Harry that. It's easier to let him keep his > perfect image of his father instead of telling him that James and his > friends could sometimes be bullies. > > But back to the topic at hand. > DB: I don't doubt that the Mauraders enjoyed picking on Snape, and the rest of the Slytherins, much the same way Ron, Hermione and Harry enjoy getting one over on Malfoy and his gang. But, consider the time this was taking place. Voldermort was at the height of his powers. In GoF, years after Voldermort has disappeared, some unnamed ministry official calls for an investigation into Harry because he can talk to snakes. And this is in a time of peace. Students with an unhealthy interest in the Dark Arts in Snape, Potter and the gang's time would seem to me to be treated not unlike Nazi sympathizers in France during the Occupation. >From Snape's point of view, I'm sure he was persecuted unjustly. But I doubt seriously if three of the most popular characters in the series, James Potter, Sirius Black and Remus Lupin, are going to be found to be tyrannical bullies. > > 4) Dumbledore made Snape an offer he can't refuse > > That ties into my own thoughts a bit, but not in quite the way you've > postulated. > > We know from canon that Snape DOES have a conscience. Otherwise, he > probably wouldn't have gone to so much trouble to save Harry's life in > SS. Since he has a conscience, he can feel guilt, and guilt can be an > excellent motivator. > > The way I rendered things, Snape became a Death Eater in the first place > because of... well... a lot of things (it's a little complicated), but > after he got in, he realized he'd made a mistake. He didn't want to > face up to this until the actions he performed in Voldemort's service > finally became too much for his conscience to bear. The offer that > Dumbledore made to him was the chance to atone for his sins. > DB: Also on this really informative SS/PS page 300, we have Dumbledore speculating that Snape saved Harry because he still felt he owed James and wanted to clear the books. To that end, he does have either a conscience or a highly developed sense of honor. Fascinating stuff. I still stand by my one overriding theory -- Snape and Potter were friends at some point, either in first year or pre- Hogwarts, and had a falling out. Darrin Burnett -- Or perhaps Snape and Aunt Petunia were lovers once... From bard7696 at aol.com Sun Jun 16 02:50:48 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 02:50:48 -0000 Subject: Evil Lupin/McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39918 Random Monkey wrote: > On Evil!Lupin, David_Burnett: > > For sheer practicality, I'm not sure JKR turns someone that popular > > bad. It's simply not good business. :) > > Have you ever been to somelace like Fanfiction.net? Do a search or > Severus Snape and see how many Mary Sues (or even Gary Stus) you find. > (I don't know why I bring this up, since I am adamantly against > LYCANTHROPEs. In fact, I think Evil!McGonagall is silly, too. I just > don't like theories to be disproved with faulty evidence. That, and I > like to argue. ;^_^) > > The Random Monkey, who, for sme reason, seems to love arguing with > David I'm DARRIN! :) David is my evil twin, who wonders why Voldermort keeps getting this bad rap. I really try to avoid fanfiction. It always either disappoints me or angers me. That's not just for HP stuff. It's for all manners of pop culture. I'm not sure what faulty evidence you refer to, if you mean what I said about Lupin being too lucrative to turn evil. I'm just pointing out that when a character is as popular as Lupin is, you think very carefully before making him a bad guy. Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, illustrated it perfectly. When he introducted a cat into the comic strip, hundreds of fans wrote to him and said: "More Catbert." He hadn't named the cat. They just assumed that it would follow Ratbert, Dogbert, etc... Quoth Mr. Adams: "When hundreds of readers spontaneously pick the same name for the character, it seems a good idea to keep him." I think Lupin falls in the same category. It's not faulty evidence, just evidence that calls on different sources -- the mood of the marketplace -- rather than clues in the dialogue. Hey, what does LYCANTHROPE stand for? This place is really Acronym crazy. Darrin Burnett -- Once killed a man for calling him David From aiz24 at hotmail.com Sun Jun 16 03:28:12 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 23:28:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why Peter was at Hagrid's (was Dishwashers , Puppy hunts , etc.) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39919 I wrote: > >> A problem with this solution is that Peter knows how to get >past the Whomping Willow. He could easily evade the >Dementors entirely, escape to Hogsmeade through the >Shrieking Shack, << Pippin wrote: >There's no way out of the Shack except through the Willow. Of >course not, it's a prison for a werewolf. To quote Princess Leia, >"They don't build them with multiple exits, you know." Those >windows are blocked by more than boards. Otherwise Fred and >George would have gotten in. The Marauders must have let >Lupin out through the Tunnel. Hm. You may be right. I was figuring Remus, Sirius and James were just kept in the Shack by the fact that they were so large and Peter could've gotten out into the village that way if he weren't with them, but it stands to reason there'd be magical barriers too. Amy Z _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From violetbaudelaire2002 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 16 03:16:19 2002 From: violetbaudelaire2002 at yahoo.com (violetbaudelaire2002) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 03:16:19 -0000 Subject: Deconstructing Harry, or The Struggle for Agency Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39920 I will admit off of the bat that I am a late-comer and have neither the time nor the particular energy to pick apart the MAGIC DISHWASHER theory, but the snippets I hzve made sense of have got me thinking (though I have a "1000 monkies with 1000 typewriters" idea that it has been proposed already), but as I'm a school teacher with three long months before I can lecture on Romeo and Juliet's battle against fate, I'll go for it anyway. Temporarily ignoring any notions of authorial intent, I'll be basing my theory on what is actually in the books, and like any good deconstructionist, I'll twist each incident so that it assumes a completely nihlistic shape. Within the confines of the books, there are several characters vying for agency, or any kind of power or demonstration of free will. All of these characters, coincidently are adults (I'll come back to this). The case can, and has, been made that Dumbledore is orchestrating events so that Voldemort can rise again, but on Dumbledore's terms. The relative ease in which Harry, Ron and Hermione are able to get through the dungeon to the Sorceror's Stone seems to confirm this-- that thing isn't that well protected, really. And Harry even gets the feeling that Dumbledore made it easy for him (SS pg. 302- "...he knows more or less everything that goes on here...I don't think it was an accident he let me find out how the mirror worked"- aah, Harry, alas, there are *no* accidents!). The Invisibility Cloak is not only given to Harry, but returned at a crucial moment; Hagrid (loyal to Dumbledore) gives Harry a *flute* for Christmas, etc, etc, ad nauseum. If Voldemort is truely to rise again, Dumbledore wants to be able to defeat him on his own terms, not Voldemort's. Dumbledore is chosing his battles, allowing himself the freedom/power to demonstrate his own agency, and he does a darn good job of controling Harry. Snape, as well, is struggling for agency. Whether for or against Dumbledore I will not even begin to speculate here. Notice in CoS, he has Malfoy set a serpant on Harry, and then has "a shrewd and calculating look" (CoS 195) when Harry has demonstrated Parselmouth. Snape has set events in motion to ensure that Harry is able to figure out the Riddle (excuse the pun). Snape, like Dumbledore, is exhibiting his own power of agency by manipulating Harry. I'm sure one could find plentiful evidence of Snape's agency throughout the series (saving Harry in SS, covering for him in PoA, etc...). Snape wants things on his own terms as well; his actions succeed in making Malfoy Sr look bad, and in GoF he makes Krarkoff look suspicious. A good way to get back at your ex DE pals. In order not to make this longer than necessary, I will briefly give an example of one other character's agency and then proceed to my point- Voldemort. The whole series, thus far, has revolved around his struggle to regain a body, a life, etc... He is little more then spirit, but he does have *will*, and after all, where there's a will, there's a way, right? In much the same way that Dumbledore, Snape, whoever else, is orchestrating events to serve their own purposes, Voldemort uses whatever means are available to further his cause (he is even willing to live a half life, or cursed life for this- which makes him a doppelganger of sorts for Dumbledore, who, it is noted, is too noble to do things like this). Now, about this agency.... The world of Harry Potter is an *adult* world; the adults are, effectively, battling each other at every movement for control/power (even in minor incidents- think Malfoy Sr/Arthur Weasly; Madame Pompfrey/anyone interfering in the hospital ward; Filch/Peeves, Dursleys/entire WW, etc...). Each adult is looking for ways to serve their own ends, and Harry (all children) are merely pawns in this. If the adults are constantly struggling for power amongst themselves, no one is really in control; there are only semblances of control. There is no stable power because each adult is working against each other (though they may be working *against* the same people, each person does not have the same MO- can Snape's MO and Dumbledore's MO really be the same? are they even compatible? will there not be a moment when one is working in a way that can harm the other?). Free will, agency, is on shakey ground here because what each character does is, in effect, what the other character has wanted them to do, even planned for them to do. Most notably it is the children in the series who have no free will, or so it would seem. In the first few books it would seem that Harry is easily led (or at least the case can be made as such), but remember- he can easily throw off the Imperious Curse (which, oddly enough, is a rarity- further proof for my "no agency" argument). I'm not sure what to make of that. Maybe children are where the hope lies; they must be the ones to work together to overcome duplicity (diversity is a common theme in the book- in order to overcome all of this duplicity, one must overcome prejudices). It will be interesting to watch Percy, as he is the only character we have seen to date that moves from childhood (or pupildom at least) into the adult world. So, does free will exist in Potterverse? Other excellent discussions points would be the Centaurs, Trewallany, and Harry's frequent dreams. -VioletBaudelaire, struggling with her own issues of agency. From goddess at yaoigoddess.com Sun Jun 16 03:07:51 2002 From: goddess at yaoigoddess.com (Rochelle) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 23:07:51 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: So, why did Snape turn on Voldermort? References: Message-ID: <3D0C0107.954E2C18@yaoigoddess.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39921 darrin_burnett wrote: > > DB: I've read the first few chapters of your story, and I think the > introduction of a specific religion -- and how Wizards who were > Muggles deal with that phenomena -- is fascinating and well-done Thank you. :) > but > I have to say I dislike the introduction of homosexuality into the > fray. > Sexuality -- bisexuality, heterosexuality, or homosexuality -- has > been very lightly touched in the world of HP. The kids are third- > years before we even get a hint of raging hormones and fourth-years > before we get the kind of chaste bickering that comes with early > sexuality. > Not to delve too deeply into forbidden topics like the movies, but > this straying from reality in JKR's world is the main reason young > Daniel Radcliffe probably will not be able to do all seven movies. > Young boys change mostly between 11 and 12 in the real world, and > having seen the 30-second teaser for the film CoS, it is obviously > happening to Radcliffe. > Harry Potter, on the other hand, is nearly 14 before we get a sense > of him hitting puberty. > To me, that's just one more of the rules JKR has introduced. She's > taken us back to a time when the equivalent of American fifth- and > sixth-graders were not exploring their sexuality. > I rarely read fanfiction of any pop culture phenomena, and seeing > such deviations from the established world always startles me. I am really confused by all of this. I don't understand how two boys becoming fond of each other (especially when both are mature for their ages) is a deviation from anything since it HAS been known to happen IRL. For one thing, what I've written isn't set in stone. It's just one possibility out of many. For another... couldn't the fact that JKR hasn't talked about sexuality in any real detail have more to do with her publishers and her personal goals than any actual "rules" for the world she's created? I mean, how friendly do you think Scholastic would be towards the idea of "children's" books detailing homosexual relationships? And as riled up as some people get over how the Harry Potter series will supposedly lead children into Satan worship, trying anything that really IS controversial in this series would pretty much be an invitation for death threats. Maybe I'm just the odd exception (but I seriously doubt I am), but my very first kiss was given to me in kindergarten, and I first realized I was attracted to... well... anyone at around age six. (There even was a woman I wanted to marry, but that's another story.) Also, judging from the way my little friends talked about boys when I was in FIRST GRADE, crushes can and often do start well before puberty. I also remember how, when I was twelve, people had already started talking about boyfriends and girlfriends. I'm thinking of how the REAL world works, here, and all fan fiction is based on some form of personal extrapolation. Just because the author hasn't written about it in detail doesn't mean it can't exist. Also, as glad as I am that you enjoy the religious angle, JKR hasn't dealt with that in any more detail than she has with sexuality. Going by what you said about the topic of sexuality, discussion of religion in HP fan fics would be just as "invalid" as Snape kissing Remus (and that's all they do in my fic) when they're twelve. > > On the other hand, Snape's hatred has to come from somewhere, and > unrequited love is as good a reason as any. All cliches start with > truth. But it's still just theory, isn't it (just like practically everything else), and not necessarily based on actual canon. What bothers me is how I've so often seen this idea treated as if it IS canon. > > From Snape's point of view, I'm sure he was persecuted unjustly. But > I doubt seriously if three of the most popular characters in the > series, James Potter, Sirius Black and Remus Lupin, are going to be > found to be tyrannical bullies. Who said anything about tyranny? I think they were just typical obnoxious teenage boys (and most teenage boys ARE inherently obnoxious ;)), and that Snape was one of those kids who more "normal" people tend to make fun of. Right or wrong, that's just what happens. If that turns out to be the case, I think it would be a good opportunity for JKR to show that even good people sometimes make bad choices, and that the way a child/teen is treated can affect him for the rest of his life. Being an object or ridicule during one's adolescnece can very well result in his or her becoming bitter, spiteful and suspicious indefinitely. For some people, the scars just don't heal. > Darrin Burnett > -- Or perhaps Snape and Aunt Petunia were lovers once... Okay, now that's just frightening. *Rochelle. ;) -- http://www.YaoiGoddess.com/ --Long Live the Slash. http://www.fanfiction.net/profile.php?userid=26023 --My fics on FFN. http://www.YaoiGoddess.com/light/ --Dying of the Light: A history of Severus Snape, Dark Arts prodigy turned Death Eater. ------------------ From aiz24 at hotmail.com Sun Jun 16 03:52:12 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 23:52:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-Turner Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39922 Debbie wrote: there's only one history, it involved HH1 and HH2 acting > > simultaneously. HH1 see Harry2 and HH2 see HH1, so we know there's only >one > > sequence of events. And neither one of them is dead. And in the same > > manner, each class period was only held once, but Hermione1 attended > > Divination, Hermione2 attended Arithmancy, etc. Fiat Incantatum wrote: >Something that I think hasn't been mentioned that supports this is the >missed Charms class. When Hermione misses a Charms class, Ron and Harry >know about it and ask her where she went, since she'd been right next to >them when they reached the door. Since at that point she'd already >missed it, she couldn't then use the TT to go back and attend it, no >matter how awful missing a class might seem to her. I was wondering about the missed Charms class too. But I still don't get it. Think of it this way: Hermione does this routine every day. When she goes to Muggle Studies, she is missing Divination. Then she turns over the TT, goes back, and goes to Divination. I understand what Deb is saying about the two Hermiones, but I don't understand why she couldn't use it to go to a missed Charms class. Had she kept her cool and gone back and gone to Charms, Harry and Ron (at least the ones in that time-thread) would remember her going to Charms. By the same token, they remember her going to Divination every time, even though she was in both Divination and Muggle Studies; she went to one "first" and "then" the other, and no one in either class missed her--because she was there. Before you say "but that day, she *wasn't* in Charms," let me ask: why wasn't she? There's no difference between missing a class because you got stressed out and accidentally went back and took a nap in your common room, and missing a class because you went to your other class. In each case, you use your TT at the end of the period you want to re-live, and re-live it. Amy Z who can't keep straight where she has to be when in *one* continuum, thank you, so will decline to use a TT, however tempting it may be _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sun Jun 16 07:33:05 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 07:33:05 -0000 Subject: Acronyms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39923 David Burnett wrote: > Hey, what does LYCANTHROPE stand for? This place is really Acronym > crazy. > > David Burnett > -- Once killed a man for calling him Darrin ;-) For your information, there is a database of acronyms in the group. Click on database (in webview, in the left-hand side menu), and select the last one: Inish Alley. It's got a helpful search feature, too. LYCANTHROPE: Lupin Yields Candy, A Nasty Trick; He's Really, Obviously, Perfectly Evil (Found by following that path) Yes, HP4GU is acronym intensive, thanks to the influence of one by the name Tabouli since she used to make great acronyms for every situation. I have perpetuated the tradition, since I believe acronyms are fun. You'll just have to bear with us, I'm afraid. It's a helpful feature, thought, since you just asociate the theory to the cacronym, and the most important details are normally included in the acronym (if it's well done, that is). For example: MAGIC DISHWASHER (Mysterious Agendas Generate Interesting Conclusion: Dumbledore Is Secretly Hatching Ways to Assure Superiority for Harry in the Emerging Resolution) ---> A theory about Dumbledore spying methods. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who hopes Darrin is not too offended by his play on his name, and wishes to offer his sympathy since he has been victimized in similar fashion before. Who also promises not to do it again. From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sun Jun 16 10:54:40 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 10:54:40 -0000 Subject: Time-Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39924 Amy Z wrote: > Before you say "but that day, she *wasn't* in Charms," let me ask: > why wasn't she? There's no difference between missing a class > because you got stressed out and accidentally went back and took a > nap in your common room, and missing a class because you went to your > other class. In each case, you use your TT at the end of the period > you want to re-live, and re-live it. > > Amy Z > who can't keep straight where she has to be when in *one* continuum, > thank you, so will decline to use a TT, however tempting it may be I'm just brainstorming here, so don't be afraid to point out inconsistencies, but the reason could be that there is a limit to the number of times you can use the TT to re-live a particular time (let's say two), and thus the last one, instead of being used by Hermione to attend Charms, was used for a nice one-hour nap in the common room. It fits canon, but I cannot think of any reason why you could use it two times (instead of one or three). I'd make more sense if you could only use it once, but we know that Hermione attended three classes simultainiously (sp?) which means she used it two times. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From Ali at zymurgy.org Sun Jun 16 11:31:29 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 11:31:29 -0000 Subject: Maturity of kids in Potterverse was Re: So, why did Snape turn on In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39925 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > > Sexuality -- bisexuality, heterosexuality, or homosexuality -- has > been very lightly touched in the world of HP. The kids are third- > years before we even get a hint of raging hormones and fourth-years > before we get the kind of chaste bickering that comes with early > sexuality. > > Not to delve too deeply into forbidden topics like the movies, but > this straying from reality in JKR's world is the main reason young > Daniel Radcliffe probably will not be able to do all seven movies. > Young boys change mostly between 11 and 12 in the real world, and > having seen the 30-second teaser for the film CoS, it is obviously > happening to Radcliffe. > > Harry Potter, on the other hand, is nearly 14 before we get a sense > of him hitting puberty. > > To me, that's just one more of the rules JKR has introduced. She's > taken us back to a time when the equivalent of American fifth- and > sixth-graders were not exploring their sexuality. > I think it is generally accepted that Harry is less mature than comparable kids in our world. It is also true that some kids hit puberty much later than others. I can think of 2 boys in my road at the moment who are both 14 (and according to their mothers) are only just starting puberty. So in that respect, I personally don't feel that Harry is particularly out of kilter. Late maybe, but not unusual. When you think of all the other changes he is still getting used to, in the WW, perhaps it is not a wonder that his mind turns to girls slightly later than other kids. Another point I think is that British kids are still less sophisticated than their American counterparts. This is a generalisation, and one which is changing rapidly. But, in every TV programme I see with American High School kids, I always think that the kids seem much older than British children of the same age. I know the actors are often in their 20's, so they look older, but they seem older in their attitudes as well. So I think that JKR is painting a slightly anachronistic picture of adolescent development, which fits in with Harry as a late starter in the WW, but one which would not be that unusual in British Muggle Society. Ali From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Sun Jun 16 07:29:18 2002 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (arcum42) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 07:29:18 -0000 Subject: Time-Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39926 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > > Before you say "but that day, she *wasn't* in Charms," let me ask: > why wasn't she? There's no difference between missing a class > because you got stressed out and accidentally went back and took a > nap in your common room, and missing a class because you went to > your other class. In each case, you use your TT at the end of the > period you want to re-live, and re-live it. > As far as why she didn't go back and retake that class, it was probably either stress and/or lack of sleep making her forget about the possibility, only being authorized to use it for Divination, Muggle Studies, and Arithmancy, or just simply that Harry having told her she wasn't there makes it so that she'd be altering the course of events that you know to have happened, as with the invisibility cloak. I was trying to figure her schedule out for that day, though, and now I'm rather confused about how Ron and Harry got to their classes that day, let alone Hermione. They had just left their Care of Creatures, which, earlier in the book was supposed to be right after lunch, went to Charms sans Hermione, then went to lunch, then after lunch, when they met up with Hermione, it was 20 minutes to Divination, which we know from earlier is scheduled for 9 am, and had been their first class of the day previously. Did I miss their schedule being totally rearranged? OTOH, perhaps I just need some sleep myself. I just spent several minutes trying to interpret Hermione saying "Harry, you'd better beat him in the Quidditch final! You just better had, because I can't stand it if Slytherin wins!" as meaning that the Quidditch match had already happened on her timeline, before realizing that there were at least a few days before the match at the time... --Arcum From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jun 16 13:14:21 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 13:14:21 -0000 Subject: Time-Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39927 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > I'm just brainstorming here, so don't be afraid to point out > inconsistencies, but the reason could be that there is a limit to the number of times you can use the TT to re-live a particular time (let's say two), and thus the last one, instead of being used by Hermione to attend Charms, was used for a nice one-hour nap in the common room. It fits canon, but I cannot think of any reason why you could use it two times I think Hermione was warned that the restriction against using the time turner for anything but attending class was stringent, She was not suppposed to use it to get extra time for naps or homework. This is bolstered by the many references in canon to how harried Hermione looked and how much homework she was doing. If she did turn back time to attend class, but fell asleep instead, she probably felt guilty and decided she deserved to miss Charms as a punishment. Or maybe, as in much other Potterverse magic, there's a role for intention. If you use the Time Turner with a purpose in mind and you don't accomplish that purpose, the magic doesn't let you go back and try it again. This would fit with Hermione's admonition to Harry : "We came back to help Sirius; we're not supposed to be doing anything else!" So if Hermione turned back time to go to Charms class, but didn't go, she had no choice but to miss the class. Pippin wondering how the role of intention in magic fits with the concept of agency Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jun 16 13:30:30 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 13:30:30 -0000 Subject: A case against Evil Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39928 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > For sheer practicality, I'm not sure JKR turns someone that popular bad. It's simply not good business. :)<< JKR has said that she didn't write the books with the intention of becoming a best-selling author. She writes them to please herself. As far as we know she's answerable only to her own sense of taste. She's not dependent on her publisher's wishes and she's got more money than she can spend. If she means to do something impractical or unbusinesslike, what's to stop her? Pippin who still wants to know why JKR told us there was extra wolfsbane potion around if it isn't important. From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sun Jun 16 16:01:05 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 16:01:05 -0000 Subject: Why Peter was at Hagrid's (was Dishwashers , Puppy hunts , etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39929 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > >There's no way out of the Shack except through the Willow. Of > >course not, it's a prison for a werewolf. To quote Princess Leia, > >"They don't build them with multiple exits, you know." Those > >windows are blocked by more than boards. Otherwise Fred and > >George would have gotten in. The Marauders must have let > >Lupin out through the Tunnel. But they couldn't have -- that would've put them all back on Hogwarts grounds, not in Hogsmeade, and Lupin specifially says they ran around Hogsmeade. I suppose it's possible that they got out past the Willow and then went to Hogsmeade by an alternate route, but I find it very hard to believe that a stag and wolf and a huge dog ran around school grounds every month without being noticed by Filch, Dumbledore, or any of the staff and students. It's hard enough to believe they got away with it in Hogsmeade. So there must've been another way out of the Shack. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jun 16 17:16:26 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 17:16:26 -0000 Subject: Go In and Out the Willow was Why Peter was at Hagrid's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39931 I said: > > >There's no way out of the Shack except through the Willow. Of course not, it's a prison for a werewolf. To quote Princess Leia,"They don't build them with multiple exits, you know." Those windows are blocked by more than boards. Otherwise Fred andGeorge would have gotten in. The Marauders must have let Lupin out through the Tunnel. Marina: > But they couldn't have -- that would've put them all back on > Hogwarts grounds, not in Hogsmeade, and Lupin specifially says they ran around Hogsmeade. <<< He says "Soon we were leaving the Shrieking Shack and roaming the school grounds and the village by night." --PoA 18. The Willow cannot be visible from any of the dormitories, or it couldn't have been kept secret that Lupin went there. It isn't that far from the willow to the Forest, which is probably where they spent the bulk of their time. Dumbledore: "The forest *on the grounds* is forbidden to all pupils" SS/PS ch. 7 (emphasis mine) Centaurs are very good at minding their own business. No one else is likely to be roaming the grounds or the village on a night of the full moon. Most sensible wizards are probably indoors with the windows shuttered and bolted, especially if there are rumors of werewolf sightings. Filch is a Squib whose office is windowless and whose duties usually keep him inside the school--he certainly wouldn't be taking students for a Forbidden Forest detention on a full moon. (Something first year Draco should have thought of.) The Hogwarts Gates must be powerfully charmed, but between James, who was trusted as Head Boy, and Pettigrew, who had the run of the castle as a rat, I doubt that any passwords were safe from them. That's probably how they got off the grounds and into the village--or they could have even swum across the lake, with their bodies hidden by the water and the Invisibility Cloak over their heads. It'd be difficult with a werewolf in tow, but it seems Lupin was fairly docile with them as long as no humans were in the vicinity. Sirius and James did have some run-ins with Hagrid, from what he says in the Three Broomsticks. I don't suppose he would have let them off if he had caught them outright, but I wouldn't put it past him to look the other way sometimes. A werewolf's an interestin' creature. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jun 16 17:49:26 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 17:49:26 -0000 Subject: Go In and Out the Willow correction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39932 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > I said: > The Willow cannot be visible from any of the dormitories, or it > couldn't have been kept secret that Lupin went there. I was wrong. Harry could see the willow from his window in Gryffindor tower, which makes me wonder how Lupin managed to avoid being seen when Pomfrey took him there to transform. Perhaps Pomfrey took him during dinner, when all the students were in the Great Hall. If that is the only dorm window with a view of the willow, and it was the Marauders' room, that would take care of it. Or else, they used whatever magical method Pomfrey and Lupin used. Pippin sorry about that From wmginnypowell at msn.com Sun Jun 16 22:59:30 2002 From: wmginnypowell at msn.com (merimom3) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 22:59:30 -0000 Subject: How the Marauders Map works...explains problems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39933 I don't claim to know all about it (having not yet completed my course of study at Hogwarts ;-), but it seems to me that the Map has to work in one of two ways. 1. It shows everybody within its range, all the time 2. It only shows what you need at the time If it is 1, then most of the time the Map is consulted, most of the people - in classrooms, the Great Hall, dorms - are in such concentrations that the little tiny characters and words would be impossible to decipher. I mean, imagine twenty little ink figures with twenty names in a classroom, all written atop one another in a big jumble. So your eye would naturally go to any that were moving and/or alone, which covers all the known instances IIRC (correct me if I'm wrong). If it instead works as in 2, rather conveniently only showing what is needed for the plot, it requires some mechanism, some rule on which to operate that, IMHO, can only be explained as...wait for it...magic! "Perhaps you are only able to see people whom you have previously met/seen *or* interacted with", the rule that Heidi put forward, doesn't work IMO because Harry has "interacted" with a very many people who are on the grounds at one time. Perhaps it is simply a matter of our human eyes searching for anomalies - who's that way over there? is there anyone near where I am now? are there any unfamiliar/unexpected names? On a tangent, my personal definition of magic is "anything that can't be explained", which gives Jo as much leeway as she wants and covers a multitude of FLINT-like occurences, while I just sit back and enjoy the ride. Ginny From bard7696 at aol.com Sun Jun 16 13:40:06 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 13:40:06 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Sexuality in HP (WAS So, why did Snape turn on Voldermort?) In-Reply-To: <3D0C0107.954E2C18@yaoigoddess.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39934 Rochelle said: > I am really confused by all of this. I don't understand how two boys > becoming fond of each other (especially when both are mature for their > ages) is a deviation from anything since it HAS been known to happen > IRL. For one thing, what I've written isn't set in stone. It's just > one possibility out of many. For another... couldn't the fact that JKR > hasn't talked about sexuality in any real detail have more to do with > her publishers and her personal goals than any actual "rules" for the > world she's created? I mean, how friendly do you think Scholastic would > be towards the idea of "children's" books detailing homosexual > relationships? And as riled up as some people get over how the Harry > Potter series will supposedly lead children into Satan worship, trying > anything that really IS controversial in this series would pretty much > be an invitation for death threats. > I don't think homosexuality is necessarily the issue. JKR has avoided sexuality in general for most of the series. The only time I can recall anything beyond innocent little crushes -- Harry getting a funny feeling when he sees Cho or Hermione circling Lockhart's classes in hearst -- is the post-Yule Ball dance in GoF. Snape and Karakoff were walking around and Snape was blowing apart bushes to find students there. I would guess they were making out. And any physical contact between Hermione and the boys has been treated as something rare and eventful. Ron panicks when Hermione sobs in his arms in PoA. Harry freaks when Hermione hugs him in SS/PS. Kisses on the cheek from Fleur nearly make the boys faint. At the very end of GoF, JKR makes a point of telling us that this is the first time Hermione has ever kissed Harry on the cheek. And we have no inkling of any of the other parts of puberty - having to shave faces, legs or armpits; the girls wearing bras or getting their periods or any unfortunate incidents where the boys REALLY CANNOT go to the front of Potions class to mix that serum. No, sexuality, with rare exceptions, simply isn't a part of the Harry Potter world as of yet. We still have three books to go, obviously, so it could. I have to disagree that the publishers are forcing sexuality out of the mix. Given the phenomenal success of the stories, I have to believe JKR has enough clout to where if she really wanted to introduce these issues, she could. The "Harry Potter promotes Satan" crowd has done absolutely nothing to curb the sales of the books, movies and merchandise. You could make a case such controversy has increased profits. If sexuality isn't part of the books, I have to believe it's because JKR doesn't want it to be. > Maybe I'm just the odd exception (but I seriously doubt I am), but my > very first kiss was given to me in kindergarten, and I first realized I > was attracted to... well... anyone at around age six. (There even was a > woman I wanted to marry, but that's another story.) Also, judging from > the way my little friends talked about boys when I was in FIRST GRADE, > crushes can and often do start well before puberty. I also remember > how, when I was twelve, people had already started talking about > boyfriends and girlfriends. > > I'm thinking of how the REAL world works, here, and all fan fiction is > based on some form of personal extrapolation. Just because the author > hasn't written about it in detail doesn't mean it can't exist. > My point is that the real world and the Harry Potter world don't work the same way. JKR has made a point of delaying puberty. Those are the rules in the world she has created. It's not unlike the old Hardy Boys books. Yes, they had girlfriends, but frankly, they were too busy solving crimes to worry about nonsense like that. > Also, as glad as I am that you enjoy the religious angle, JKR hasn't > dealt with that in any more detail than she has with sexuality. Going > by what you said about the topic of sexuality, discussion of religion in > HP fan fics would be just as "invalid" as Snape kissing Remus (and > that's all they do in my fic) when they're twelve. > Ah, but JKR hasn't avoided religion altogether. She's just not mentioned it. That is the difference, albeit a hair-splitting one. I saw your introduction of religion as just that, an introduction of an interesting concept. I saw the discussion of sexuality among first- years as a contradiction. In general, I do not read fan-fiction. The real world extrapolation you discussed generally always stirs these arguments in me. Please take my comments with whatever grains of salt you need. > especially fond of> > > > > On the other hand, Snape's hatred has to come from somewhere, and > > unrequited love is as good a reason as any. All cliches start with > > truth. > > But it's still just theory, isn't it (just like practically everything > else), and not necessarily based on actual canon. What bothers me is > how I've so often seen this idea treated as if it IS canon. > Yes, that bothers me too. And frankly, it doesn't work with the rules I've adopted. Snape and James started hating each other in first- year. By my view of the JKR world, any long-lasting unrequited love Snape has for Lily wouldn't be taking place that early. > > > > > From Snape's point of view, I'm sure he was persecuted unjustly. But > > I doubt seriously if three of the most popular characters in the > > series, James Potter, Sirius Black and Remus Lupin, are going to be > > found to be tyrannical bullies. > > Who said anything about tyranny? I think they were just typical > obnoxious teenage boys (and most teenage boys ARE inherently obnoxious > ;)), and that Snape was one of those kids who more "normal" people tend > to make fun of. Right or wrong, that's just what happens. If that > turns out to be the case, I think it would be a good opportunity for JKR > to show that even good people sometimes make bad choices, and that the > way a child/teen is treated can affect him for the rest of his life. > Being an object or ridicule during one's adolescnece can very well > result in his or her becoming bitter, spiteful and suspicious > indefinitely. For some people, the scars just don't heal. > Again, though, we have to look at the era. A kid interested in Dark Arts during Voldemort's reign will be looked at with suspicion and fear. Again, it would be similar to a Nazi sympathizer in occupied France. Or a Taliban sympathizer in America today. Is that entirely fair? No, it's not. But it's also completely understandable. We're not talking about listening to goth music or dressing all in black. We're talking about playing around in a philosophy that has killed Wizards and Witches. This is learning curses that Death Eaters have used to maim others. Of course that is going to spur reactions in the other students. Did you cringe when Malfoy and his buddies got smacked down at the end of GoF? Because all they were doing was expressing a different point of view. Darrin Burnett -- Believe it or not, I like Snape... From bard7696 at aol.com Sun Jun 16 13:42:52 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 13:42:52 -0000 Subject: A case against Evil Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39935 Pippin wrote: > > JKR has said that she didn't write the books with the intention of > becoming a best-selling author. She writes them to please > herself. As far as we know she's answerable only to her own > sense of taste. She's not dependent on her publisher's wishes > and she's got more money than she can spend. If she means to > do something impractical or unbusinesslike, what's to stop her? > > Pippin > who still wants to know why JKR told us there was extra > wolfsbane potion around if it isn't important. Yeah, if JKR really wants to turn Lupin bad, she will. But I hope it's an actual TURN bad, rather than a "been bad all along." Darrin -- I write to make money. From crana at ntlworld.com Sun Jun 16 14:39:49 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 15:39:49 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A case against Evil Lupin References: Message-ID: <000701c21543$abdbdc20$f93568d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 39936 pippin wrote: "JKR has said that she didn't write the books with the intention of becoming a best-selling author. She writes them to please herself. As far as we know she's answerable only to her own sense of taste. She's not dependent on her publisher's wishes and she's got more money than she can spend. If she means to do something impractical or unbusinesslike, what's to stop her?" I think you are right here, but at the same time, JKR has said how much she loves some of the characters and she is very personally involved with them. I'm not sure if Lupin fits in here, but if a character comes over as very likeable to us readers, it would seem that JKR herself likes the character, and therefore would perhaps not want, herself, to make them evil? For example, I really couldn't see Mrs Weasley becoming a D.E. On the other hand, there was Evil!Moody: he seemed so nice and then wasn't. Perhaps Lupin is a similar breed? (I don't mean he is someone else in disguise though :) ). Harry does notice some similarities between them: when Moody is kind to Neville and praises his Herbology skills, Harry notes that this was "the sort of thing Professor Lupin might have done". Could Lupin be bad unknowingly - could his werewolf status be exploited? Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cureluv88 at hotmail.com Sun Jun 16 16:10:25 2002 From: cureluv88 at hotmail.com (lizbot1981) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 16:10:25 -0000 Subject: A case against Evil Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39937 > Pippin > who still wants to know why JKR told us there was extra > wolfsbane potion around if it isn't important. OK, this has almost definitely been mentioned before, but I couldn't find anything in the archives. So I apologize right off the bat, as I have a history of not finding things that were, indeed, previously mentioned. When did JKR mention extra wolfsbane potion? What's the deal with that? I would certainly find that interesting myself. Thanks, Liz From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 17 00:41:51 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 00:41:51 -0000 Subject: A case against Evil Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39938 I wrote: > > who still wants to know why JKR told us there was extra > > wolfsbane potion around if it isn't important. > > > I have a history of not finding things that were, indeed, previously mentioned. When did JKR mention extra wolfsbane potion? What's the deal with that? I would certainly find that interesting myself.<< "I made an entire cauldronful," Snape continued. "If you need more." Ch. 8 PoA. Which establishes that Snape makes more wolfsbane potion at a time than Lupin needs. We know that it is easy to break into Snape's office, and Lupin can also enter through the fireplace.So, if Lupin wanted to pretend that he hadn't taken his potion when he actually had, it wouldn't seem to be too difficult. Pippin From joeblackish at yahoo.com Mon Jun 17 00:46:11 2002 From: joeblackish at yahoo.com (joeblackish) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 00:46:11 -0000 Subject: Lucius Malfoy and CoS plot/Lucius vs. Arthur In-Reply-To: <009201c212df$e2888540$947663d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39939 In message 39805, Amanda said: I've always thought it might have been a Lucius Malfoy plan, to sow havoc at the school and get Dumbledore removed. I always considered Lucius the sort who constantly made trouble of the polite, diplomatic, take-up-your-time and obstructive type. Planting the diary to create this larger problem, to then get Dumbledore removed so that (presumably) Malfoy can step in, would do great things for the Dark cause. It would remove the most powerful wizard known, from a very influential position. It would also make it look, when and if Voldemort showed back up, as if Malfoy had actually been *doing* something to support the cause instead of just skulking and not looking for Voldemort. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree. But I think it could go a little further. When Tom Riddle takes all of Ginny's stength, what else does he get? A body. Lucius could have planned it knowing this was the best case scenario, then Ginny ends up dead, and young Voldemort has a body. Lucius know's what happened with Quirrell, and knows that his master needs a host to have a body so he can come back to power. Now Lucius isn't stupid enough to volunteer his own body, he knows that he's gone the second it's no longer useful to the V- man. But why not create a body to send to Voldemort? Why not send him his own body? Imagine: Lucius to Riddle/Diary!V come to life: "Okay, kid, killing Mudbloods is fun, and I'm really proud of you for finally doing in that Potter kid. But you want to really have some good times? You need to go reunite with your older, more powerful, and currently vapor self. It's perfect, you've got the body, he's got supreme evil know-how, think of the good times you two could have together." Then Lucius gets hardcore props. Without having to stick out his own neck, he manages to stick it to the Weasleys (if Ginny ends up getting blamed, I guess), discredit Dumbledore, kill some mudbloods, and get all the credit for bringing back his old master, without having to stick his neck out. It's brilliant! P.S. Do we have any estimate on when the elder Malfoy was in Hogwarts? I have this pet idea (unsupported by canon as far as I know), that he was there around the same time as Arthur and Molly. Maybe their mutual animosity was in origin a lot like the Severus/James, Harry/Draco feuds. Could you imagine: thirteen year old Lucius sneering to thirteen year old Arthur in the great hall: "You're taking MUGGLE STUDIES as your elective, Weasley!!? Loser! What are you going to do with that, grow up and devote your life to protecting them? Ha ha ha ha ha! I know this makes him pretty old to have his first child, but Narcissa could be a lot younger than him, Draco could have been an accident, he was too busy building up his position with Voldemort for all those years to worry about children, etc. Lots of possibilities. Joe, who is incredibly proud of himself for having finally caught up with all the recent posts. From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Mon Jun 17 00:54:43 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 00:54:43 -0000 Subject: Cuckold!Lucius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39940 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > Tex said: > > > DISK World -- Draco is Severius' Kid! > If this is serious, of course, Only partly. It would help explain Severius' behaviour toward Draco. He does seem to be a father figure to the boy. It is certainly something D'dore would NOT tell Harry about. It would let JKR kill off Lucius without a bereaved Draco, and would be easier to redeem Draco. > the great flaw is that turning on > Voldemort would hardly be the way to impress Narcissa Malfoy. Do we know Narcissa's impression of the DE's? If she was in the circle, she was one of those V didn't speak to. Ms. Lestrange, she ain't. 1. Narcissa need never know, if Snape got away with it. We don't know the nature of the damage Snape did. He may have managed to cover up the fact he was after Lucius. And Lucius is still alive, at this point. 2. Narcissa may not care about Lucius. The guy sounds hard to live with. Even compared to Snape. > Besides, isn't Draco a spitting image of his father? Lucius better think so... > -- Maybe Hagrid is Hermione's father! They both have bushy hair! Wizards need dentists, too. Yes. I can see Hagrid's wisdom tooth in a showcase in the waiting room of Granger Family Dentistry. Tex From JPA30 at cam.ac.uk Mon Jun 17 00:55:27 2002 From: JPA30 at cam.ac.uk (archeaologee) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 00:55:27 -0000 Subject: Time-Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39941 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > > I'm just brainstorming here, so don't be afraid to point out > > inconsistencies, but the reason could be that there is a limit to > the number of times you can use the TT to re-live a particular > time (let's say two), and thus the last one, instead of being used > by Hermione to attend Charms, was used for a nice one-hour > nap in the common room. It fits canon, but I cannot think of any > reason why you could use it two times > Sorry to rain on any parades, but there is an off cannon reason for Hermione not to be able to attend that class which is pretty infallible. She in informed by Ron and Harry she missed charms. She uses the time turner to go back and attend that class. So why would Ron and Harry tell her she missed it. They wouldn't, because she wouldn't have missed it. When travelling back in time the one thing you absolutely CANNOT do is invalidate your reason for going back in time in the first place. Logically impossible (if I remember my philosophy of science right). You must leave things so that when time runs again (or whichever model one uses for time travel) when you reach the point after you have changed things you still decide to go back in time. James (who has been itching to use philosophy of science in this debate and is grateful for the opportunity) From joeblackish at yahoo.com Mon Jun 17 01:05:00 2002 From: joeblackish at yahoo.com (joeblackish) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 01:05:00 -0000 Subject: TBAY: the Marauder's Map In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39942 In message 39876, random monkey said: How on earth could they have come up with the phrase, "I solemly swear I am up to no good?" Consider how many possible combinations of words there are in the English language, compounded by the fact that it would have been much more secure for the Marauders to come up with a string of gibberish or foreign words, instead of an actual phrase. Granted, they might have used a real sentence for the ease of memory (this *is* a group with Peter Pettigrew in it, after all), but that's still a lot of phrases to go through. ------------------------------------------------------------------ I don't think the Marauders made the map solely for themselves. In fact, I think they probably created it in hopes that it might be passed on and aid future troublemakers like the Weasley twins. I could imagine the map being set up so than when Fred and George are trying to figure out how to work it, Mssrs. MWPP give them a little bit of trouble, but teasingly help them along the way to the right phrase. Imagine: Map: Mssr. Padfoot is curious about your intentions. Fred: We want to have some fun. Map: What kind of fun? Fred: Mischeivous fun! Map: So, you're up to no good, you say? George: No! None at all. We promise we're total troublemakers. We stole this map from Filch's office. Map: Do you promise? Fred: We swear! George: We solemnly swear! Map: You solemny swear what? Fred and George together: We solemnly swear we're up to no good! And boom! There's the map. Of course the exercise would take a little longer and involve considerably more teasing on MWPP's part. -------------------------------------------------------- In message 39881, violetbaudelaire2002 said: I am happy this subject was brought up, though as I am new here, this could all be previously hashed material. I had a slight revelation (not the right word...) upon my last reading of SS- Fred and George could not have had (or at least been using) the Marauder's Map at the time of SS. Somewhere in ch. 11 or 12 of the US version, they say that they are going to check out a passage that Lee Jordan discovered, though they think it was the one they found in their first year. If they were using the map (they say in PoA that they got it first year), then they wouldn't have to check out this passage- they would know of its existence or lack thereof. ---------------------------------------------------------- I imagine that Fred and George wanted to check out the passage in the event that it wasn't on the Marauder's Map. I think they definitely imply they have been using it for a while now, not just for the past year. As for the perennial "why doesn't x see y on the map" dilemma, I'll throw my two knuts in since I'm talking about the thing already. I think the map, with its oh-so-well-hidden brain, sense who it needs to show you. Who you're looking for, who might mangle your mischief, who's in your path, etc. So if the map doesn't think Harry needs to see Pettigrew, or doesn't think two Hermione's are any of his business, it will just choose not to show them to him. Imagine what kind of pickle it could create for somebody it decided it didn't like. What if it turned on Harry, and just neglected to mention that Snape was right around the corner. Quite the predicament for our hero. Well, that's what you get for trusting something when you can't see where it keeps its brain. Joe, who wishes he had a map like that when he was in school From JPA30 at cam.ac.uk Mon Jun 17 01:18:41 2002 From: JPA30 at cam.ac.uk (archeaologee) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 01:18:41 -0000 Subject: Names Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39943 One of my favourite things about HP is the use of language, especially JKR's ear for how words sound. I met a girl who was wearing a quidditch t-shirt just because she saw it and loved the word. Also how could anyone like a man named Vernon Dursley, just say it out loud - do you need to know anything else about him? I know this is a much travelled topic, but I was chatting to some friends today (all right, my cox and coach, but we get along much better when we're not on the river) and I mentioned this, my coach (wise in the ways of rowing) pointed out that there is a staggering exception to this rule. Ron WEASLEY. Weasley is a bad name for a good guy. A weasel is not a nice (or well regarded) animal. Why would JKR do this. I wouldn't mind if it was a common name like (Dean) Thomas, or ethnic (Longbottom, Patel), but Weasely isn't either of these things. It seems that the majority of the names in the HP series inform you of the nature of the character. I know this, you know this, there are websites dedicated to this (excellent ones at that - and no I'm not saying this because I contributed data to one of them). I just got so used to Ron, and his name, and his family's name, that it just slipped under the radar. Any thoughts oh wise list members (and apologies if it's been covered as I did a quick search of the message archive and turned up nothing). James (who really can think about things in a non-rowing context, but just seems to spend too much time with other boaties) From kellybroughton at yahoo.com Mon Jun 17 01:20:55 2002 From: kellybroughton at yahoo.com (kelly broughton) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 18:20:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Cuckold!Lucius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020617012055.26444.qmail@web21107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39944 Although I immediately scoffed at the idea that Snape is Draco's biological daddy, I have wondered if Snape might be Draco's godfather.... not too farfetched, for me anyways. -kel darrin_burnett wrote: Tex said: > > DISK World -- Draco is Severius' Kid! > > Snape went with Dumbledore in hopes of getting rid of Lucius for good. > > He is partial to Draco because he can't act like a father to him. > > He may still be Lucius' best friend, depending on if Lucius knows > Snape betrayed the Death Eaters. > Tune in next time for -- As the Time Turner Turns. If this is a joke, good one. If this is serious, of course, the great flaw is that turning on Voldemort would hardly be the way to impress Narcissa Malfoy. Besides, isn't Draco a spitting image of his father? Darrin Burnett -- Maybe Hagrid is Hermione's father! They both have bushy hair! ________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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From editor at texas.net Mon Jun 17 01:28:14 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 20:28:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A case against Evil Lupin References: Message-ID: <004a01c2159e$41982020$3c7c63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39945 Sincerest apologies, I don't know the attribution, because I keep permanently deleting things whenever I get suspicious emails (and there've been a lot lately). So I can't go back and look. Sorry. One of you was Pippin...does that help? > I wrote: > > > who still wants to know why JKR told us there was extra > > > wolfsbane potion around if it isn't important. > > > > > I have a history of not finding things that were, indeed, > previously mentioned. When did JKR mention extra wolfsbane > potion? What's the deal with that? I would certainly find that > interesting myself.<< > > "I made an entire cauldronful," Snape continued. "If you need > more." Ch. 8 PoA. > > Which establishes that Snape makes more wolfsbane potion at > a time than Lupin needs. We know that it is easy to break into > Snape's office, and Lupin can also enter through the > fireplace.So, if Lupin wanted to pretend that he hadn't taken his > potion when he actually had, it wouldn't seem to be too difficult. I always sort of had the idea that Snape was continuing to speak when not necessary--it is sort of awkward, isn't it? I thought he was trying to do a foot-stomper for Harry ("Hell-LO! Are you listening? This guy, he has to take a *potion,* he gets sick every *month,* clue IN"), by calling attention to the potion indirectly. Snape does act to protect Harry; he can't be happy to find Harry there in the office of a werewolf. I sort of saw this as being reluctant to leave, making forced conversation in an attempt to keep an eye on things. This was also my take on his backing out. Thoughts? --Amandageist From siskiou at earthlink.net Mon Jun 17 01:39:59 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 18:39:59 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Names In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <113258013550.20020616183959@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39946 Hi, Sunday, June 16, 2002, 6:18:41 PM, archeaologee wrote: > Ron WEASLEY. > Weasley is a bad name for a good guy. A weasel is not a nice (or > well regarded) animal. Why would JKR do this. I've thought about this, too, since Ron is one of my favorite characters and I very much want him to stay "good" and alive . Anyway, Ron is not the only Weasley. There are lots of them and I can't believe they would all turn out to be with Voldemort, just because of their name. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From joeblackish at yahoo.com Mon Jun 17 01:43:35 2002 From: joeblackish at yahoo.com (joeblackish) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 01:43:35 -0000 Subject: The Betrayer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39947 I'm torn about the Hagrid inadvertently betraying Dumbledore theory. On the one hand, it seems like it HAS to happen. As people have pointed out before, that "I would trust Hagrid with my life," just SCREAMS for that plan to fail. Hello, Albus, could you be any less obvious about predicting your own death? I know some listies don't like to get hung up on metathinking and authorial intent, but really, I think the way Dumbledore passes out second chances like chocolate frogs pretty much screams "You need to trust people! Learn from the wise old wizard!" But on the other hand, Hagrid's screwed up time and time again. In fact, his drinking/foolish trusting/incompetence as a teacher/et cetera has caused a major problem in every single book. It seems to be a pretty major pattern. There's clearly a tension between these two points. I think we can resolve it. I think Hagrid can both inadvertently betray Dumbledore, and prove that he's worthy of trust. Scenario: 1. Hagrid gets drunk and lets something slip, something that will allow Voldemort to get at Dumbledore and probably kill him. 2. Voldemort takes advantage of this and comes within about an inch of killing Dumbledore in whatever way Hagrid tipped him off to. 3. Hagrid sobers up and realizes what he's done, and nobly throws himself in Dumbledore's place, sacrificing himself to save D's life. I love this because its totally in character for Hagrid, it still supports D's second chance/trusting philosophy, and most of all, it gets rid of that annoying clod. I really can't stand Hagrid. He's so boring. And such a big baby. I hope he eats it in OoP. Oh, and for Dumbledore getting it, I'll put galleons on that not happening until late book six or early book seven, and then it won't be because he's been betrayed. He'll decide it's the right time and go face Voldemort himself. He'll die either because he's old, or because Voldemort plays dirty (you know that guy hits below the belt), or maybe he'll just decide its his time and let Voldemort kill him so Harry can get away, a la Obi-Wan or countless other older and wiser mentor types in myth. On another note, I'm surprised at the puritanical attitude a lot of listies seem to have about Hagrid's drinking. I also think its totally inappropriate the way he gets drunk all the time, but many posts seem to take issue with the fact that he consumes alcohol in front of the children at all. Moderate consumption of alcohol is totally normal and healthy and shouldn't be frowned upon. Remember that Dumbledore himself has suggested imbibing a glass or two of sherry from time to time. Joe, who's off to pour himself a glass of Maker's rocks, and does not intend to endanger anyone, reveal any deep dark secrets, or irreparably scar any pre-teens in the process. From joeblackish at yahoo.com Mon Jun 17 02:30:57 2002 From: joeblackish at yahoo.com (joeblackish) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 02:30:57 -0000 Subject: So, why did Snape turn on Voldermort? In-Reply-To: <3D0BB39D.D6B1A42B@yaoigoddess.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39948 In the spirit of guessing why Snape may have turned on Voldemort, I wonder if we might consider something other than his genuine goodness or an attack of conscience, etc. What if Snape never gave a hoot about James or Lily dying? What if Snape thought it was as fun as can be to go around Imperio-ing, and Crucio-ing, and AK-ing? What if Snape didn't care who he hurt? What if it was Snape's inner-Slytherin gnawing him to leave Voldemort? Wait, don't send Fluffy at me just yet, hear me out first. Snape is clearly NOT a nice person. Snape doesn't seem to care about hurting others at all. Yes, I realize that Crucio is a little more extreme than yelling at your students, but I think its important that we realize that this is someone who feels its appropriate to publicly mock a thirteen-year old nerdy girl about her large teeth in front of her enemies. (And I think any former thirteen-year old, girl or boy, can attest to the scars that sort of treatment can leave). While I will not dispute that Snape is clearly devoted to the side of good (in fact, that's key to what I'm about to say), I don't think Snape has any sort of conscience at all. His actions attest to the fact that he doesn't care about hurting others. So there we go. Point number one, Snape is not a nice person who doesn't feel a stitch of regret about his behavior as a Death Eater. On to point number two. Voldemort, while he may reward his followers handsomely for their work, will also turn on them the minute they are no longer useful to him. Yeah, so maybe Wormtail did get that silver hand. Do you really think that Voldemort would hesitate for a second if he decided there was something to be gained by AK-ing the rat? Or even if he was bored wanted some fun? We've heard claims that certain people thought they would become Voldemort's second in command when he took over. But anyone who stopped to think would realize that second-in- command means nothing when you're dealing with a guy like Voldemort. He's totally power hungry, and there's not an ounce of Hufflepuff in that man. One servant is as good as the next. Third, Snape is one smart cookie. I don't think anyone would dispute that. Put it all together, and I think that Snape switched his allegiance for entirely selfish motives. That ambitious drive in Snape's belly told him that he would never get the power and recognition he wanted as long as he was with Voldemort. In fact, working for an evil nutcase like that is downright dangerous ? the guy's in a bad mood one day and all those evil deeds were for nothing. No, much better to work for someone like Dumbledore, who keeps his promises and passes out credit where credit is do. Also, unlike Da V-miester, Dumbledore will actually die someday and leave the top spot open. Yes, that's right. Severus betrayed his master for no other reason than he was looking out for number one. He switched sides solely for personal gain. He's ambitious to the core, and knew he would never get the glory he deserves from that crazy monster. Also, I think Snape probably has more faith in Dumbledore than Voldemort (brilliant and evil as the man might be, he's totally unstable and you really don't want to put your money on a ticking time bomb like that). He's determined that Dumbledore will eventually triumph, and he really wants to be on the winning side when this messy war is all over. Joe, who's just throwing something out there to give the anti- Snape people something to gnaw on other than that tired he's- totally-evil-and-still-a-hardcore-death-eater schitck. Oh, and who actually doesn't believe a word of this, and thinks Snape is a genuinely good guy who also happens to be mean. Oops! I shouldn't have said that. From margdean at erols.com Mon Jun 17 02:05:46 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 22:05:46 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A case against Evil Lupin References: <000701c21543$abdbdc20$f93568d5@xxx> Message-ID: <3D0D43FA.3662601A@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39949 rosie wrote: > I think you are right here, but at the same time, JKR has > said how much she loves some of the characters and she is > very personally involved with them. I'm not sure if Lupin fits > in here, but if a character comes over as very likeable to us > readers, it would seem that JKR herself likes the character, > and therefore would perhaps not want, herself, to make them evil? Have to agree with this. Lupin is, after all, the teacher that JKR has been quoted as saying she'd most want to teach her own daughter! Now, would she really say that if he was evil? --Margaret Dean, refusing point-blank to believe in an evil Lupin From joeblackish at yahoo.com Mon Jun 17 02:33:30 2002 From: joeblackish at yahoo.com (joeblackish) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 02:33:30 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on Houses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39950 In message 39857, Felicia said: Much detailed discussion has taken place about The Prank and if there was something earlier e.g. The Incident, say, a house move *might* not be out of the question, given Snape's gift for potions. There may be no canonical evidence for house changing but it can't be completely unknown - just out of Harry's sphere of knowledge. (I am always puzzled why Neville - a gifted herbology student - was placed in Gryffindor. I know his Mum and Dad were attached but.....) I don't think that houses have anything to do with your particular magical talents. Perhaps students placed in particular houses tend to gravitate towards the subjects taught by their house master, but I don't really think there's any evidence that house placement is linked to skill in a particular subject. Assuming so much also implies that the head of each house would always have to focus in the same discipline (i.e. when Professor Sprout retires, no other Hufflepuff professor could take over as head of house. Rather, they would have to find a new herbology professor who had attended Hogwarts AND had been a member of Hufflepuff. That seems like a bit too much to handle, as Hogwarts doesn't seem to have a surplus of teaching applicants). Canon dictates that students are sorted into their houses based on their personal qualities, not academic strengths. I see no reason why bravery would equate to skill in transfiguration or loyalty to a green thumb. ----------------------------------------------------------------- In message 39888, natalka57 said: (Though I do wonder, why would oh-so-studious Hermione not have been instantly attracted to Ravenclaw and what makes her think that Gryffindor "sounds by far the best"?) I think that Hermione wants to be in Gryffindor for a few reasons. First, because Dumbledore was in it, and second, because of it is generally held in high regard. I think these are both suggested by the full version of the quote used above: PS/SS (US edition, pg 106) Do either of you know what house you'll be in? I've been asking around, and I hope I'm in Gryffindor, it sounds by far the best; I hear Dumbledore himself was in it, but I suppose Ravenclaw wouldn't be too bad. Also, I assume that Hogwarts, A History features bios of each house's most notable graduates, which may have also helped her make her choice. Third, I believe that while Hermione's greatest strength is in her cleverness, that is not the characteristic she values most highly in herself or others. She says as much to Harry when they're after the stone: PS/SS (US edition, pg 287) "Me!" said Hermione. "Books! And cleverness! There are more important things ? friendship and bravery." Joe, who wishes he were a Gryffindor, but knows he's a Slytherin at heart. A good one, though. Speaking of which, it really bothers me that we have yet to see a good Slytherin student. They're all so terrible. Can't we have some example of a young person having ambition and using it for purposes of good? Also, aside from Draco, none of the Slytherins we've seen so far seem to exhibit any ambition. They all just seem to be mean, dumb clods. My picture of the ideal Slytherin is much closer to a Lucius Malfoy or young Tom Riddle than a Crabbe or Goyle. You know ? evil to the core, but also charming, sneaky, and oh-so- intelligent. Does this bother anyone else? Joe, who promises to shut up now. At least on the subject of houses. From joeblackish at yahoo.com Mon Jun 17 02:51:34 2002 From: joeblackish at yahoo.com (joeblackish) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 02:51:34 -0000 Subject: MAGIC DISHWASHER issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39951 I'm very attracted to the MAGIC DISHWASHER theory. I like the way it complicates the notions of good and evil, and makes the Potterverse so much more real than many fantasy lands. That said, I have a few problems. First of all, one of the premises of the theory is that at the time of the Shrieking Shack, if I recall correctly, 1. Both Dumbeldore and Snape know that Pettigrew/Scabbers is evil, and that he is an animagus. 2. Both Dumbeldore and Snape know that Sirius is an animagus. 3. Dumbeldore has no idea whether or not Sirius is evil. He knows that he was not the secret keeper, and did not betray the Potters to Voldemort in that way, but is still unsure as to whether he is/was a Death Eater. 4. Snape is utterly convinced that Sirius is evil. Given all this, I simply cannot understand why Dumbledore would allow Sirius to run around as an animagus all year, breaking into the school, slashing up paintings, endangering the students. I think he would most certainly have told everybody in power to be on the lookout for a big black dog. The responses to this question that have been suggested so far operate on the assumption that Dumbledore knew Sirius was innocent once he learned that Pettigrew was guilty. But I don't see any evidence of this. Also, that wasn't the original theory. Has the theory changed? What is the reasoning behind the switch? Second, while I personally love the idea of Grey Dumbledore, I feel that this is explicitly denied by canon: Dumbledore to McGonnogal: "You flatter me professor. Voldemort had powers I will never have." McGonnogal to Dumbledore: "That's only because you were too noble to use them" (Yes, I realize that the exact quote would be more helpful, but I simply can't find the damn thing anywhere, and after much searching, can't even remember what book its in. Help anyone?) I think this implies that Dumbledore is NOT grey, but rather pure white, as his name suggests. Otherwise, he should be named whatever the Latin term is for grey. If Dumbledore were willing to use not-so-good means to achieve his good ends, why is he so against the Dementors (GOF, to Moody: "I have long felt it is wrong for the ministry to ally itself with such creatures"), and why didn't he just find Voldemort when he was gaining power/in power, whatever, and AK his sorry butt, or whatever else it would have taken to kill him? Or are we suggesting that he was white in VWI and time, coupled with a victory that was neither permanent nor complete, has sullied is noble spirit? Also, a thought just popped into my head ? if Ol' Dumbledore was so noble that he wouldn't resort to Voldemort's sort of means, what the dickens does he think is ever going to get rid of him? Does he want to capture him and them lock him up in a private cell for the rest of eternity in a dementor-free Azkaban and just hope we never see a security breach? Or is he dumb enough to think he could convert Voldemort to the good side, if he could just restrain him long enough to have a heart to heart? Wake up, Albus! On the other hand, I'd like to offer a theory in favor of MAGIC DISHWASHER. In post 39904, Debbie wrote: But, IIRC, this discussion arose out of the issue of whether Voldemort would have sent Pettigrew to Snape for the resurrection potion, and I think we seem to agree now that Voldemort suspected his loyalty too much at that point to have relied on him for the potion recipe. ----------------------------------------------------- Speculation inspired by this comment has seemed to center around Snape providing Voldemort with this potion while he was still in power, but I think that is a little iffy. However, what if, at the end of CoS, Dumbledore and Snape are at a loss. The war has once again reached a stalemate, and they don't have a clue what to do next. Then, Hagrid comes back from Azkaban with the skippy news that Pettigrew was the secret keeper, and a Voldemort supporter, and then Dumbledore eventually puts two and two together with the rat. (I don't recall exactly how MAGIC DISHWASHER claims he figured this out. But anyway ) Snape and Dumbledore then realize this is information they can use to their advantage. They then work out the elaborate plan by which Pettigrew escapes back to Voldemort with planted information about a flawed potion. Snape doesn't necessarily have to share the information directly with Pettigrew/Scabbers (and is probably a little more clever than that anyway, I would imagine), but how about if he just happened to arrange some way for Pettigrew/Scabbers to learn about the potion, and think that he hit gold. Similar to what Croody did to get Dobby to give Harry the gillyweed. Imagine: Snape realizes that Pettigrew is hiding in Hagrid's hut, or notices him eavesdropping in his office during a meeting with Dumbledore, or what have you, and then says to whoever happens to be around something to the effect of: "Gee, Dumbledore, I hope that Voldemort doesn't get any loyal servants returning to him anytime soon, because wouldn't it be the worst thing ever if he used that potion to get a new body? You know the one I mean flesh of a servant, willingly given, bones of a father, blood of an enemy, forcibly taken? I mean, gee whiz, that is one powerful bit of magic, and if Voldemort ever used that to return, we'd be in a pretty pickle. Gosh, hope that doesn't happen. No siree." Dumbledore could even respond with something like, "Oh, I know, that would be the worst thing possible for us. That potion has no flaws. Lets just cross our fingers and hope he doesn't know about the fatal problem with that magic dishwasher charm. Golly gee, I hope he goes with the magic dishwasher thing. We'd be so set, what with all its hidden weaknesses and everything." It would be a brilliant bluff! And Pettigrew, being the dumb clod that he is, buys it hook, line, and sinker, and is just as proud as can be to bring the fruits of his spying back to his master. (Sort of like Brer Rabbit: "Okay, you can beat me, tar me, feather me, whatever, I don't care. But please, please, please don't throw me in the briar patch!) Joe, who is getting exhausted from this crazy posting wave. From bard7696 at aol.com Mon Jun 17 01:04:47 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 01:04:47 -0000 Subject: New acronym expressing my views Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39952 My theory is that James and Snape were friends either in first year or in pre-Hogwarts days. I believe the amount of hatred Snape has shown toward Harry COMBINED with the protective instinct he shows are two conflicting emotions and they are resolved by James and Snape being friends at one point. Further, I believe that Snape believes, however grudgingly, that Harry is the best hope for defeating Voldemort. If there was any other option, he would take it and try to get Potter expelled, but there isn't. I also think this is why Dumbledore keeps Snape in the dark about some issues -- Sirius and the Time-Turner, to name two. Snape needs some plausible deniability. If he is a spy in V-Mort's camp, he needs to be able to say he's doing what he can for Slytherin House. Letting Hermione misuse a Time Turner isn't that. Further, I think Lupin is not evil. I base this on two things, irrational and rational. Irrational: I like the guy and don't want him to be. Rational: The evidence against him seems to be lack of judgement. Forgetting to take his potion is certainly careless, but intentionally so? I don't buy it. Is Dumbledore the main man, manipulating all this? Frankly, I don't think he's THAT good. I think he's the best adapter on the planet, able to re-think his plans at a moment's notice. But, I don't think he knew about Sirius' innocence until late in the game. So, for those that feel roughly the same -- here is the acronym. JOBS SUCK, BUT HOW ELSE DOES ONE LIVE? James Once Befriended Snape; Snape's Unfortunate Curiousity Killed Buddiness Until Tournament because Harry Overcame Wrath. Evil Lupin Simply Erroneous and Dumbledore's Overarching Eternal Scheme Ought Not Engineer Losing Innocence to Voldemort's Extinction. >From Darrin Burnett: Don't Anger Riled Readers with Incorrect Name Because Understanding Readers' Names Exudes Terrific Talent From cureluv88 at hotmail.com Sun Jun 16 16:10:40 2002 From: cureluv88 at hotmail.com (lizbot1981) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 16:10:40 -0000 Subject: A case against Evil Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39953 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" > wrote: > > > For sheer practicality, I'm not sure JKR turns someone that > popular bad. It's simply not good business. :)<< > > JKR has said that she didn't write the books with the intention of > becoming a best-selling author. She writes them to please > herself. As far as we know she's answerable only to her own > sense of taste. She's not dependent on her publisher's wishes > and she's got more money than she can spend. If she means to > do something impractical or unbusinesslike, what's to stop her? > > Pippin > who still wants to know why JKR told us there was extra > wolfsbane potion around if it isn't important. From cureluv88 at hotmail.com Sun Jun 16 16:47:36 2002 From: cureluv88 at hotmail.com (lizbot1981) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 16:47:36 -0000 Subject: Time-Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39954 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > > I was wondering about the missed Charms class too. But I still don't get > it. > > Think of it this way: Hermione does this routine every day. When she goes > to Muggle Studies, she is missing Divination. Then she turns over the TT, > goes back, and goes to Divination. This doesn't quite make sense to me (but then, time travel is a tough topic). It seems to me that Hermione is never missing Divination. She goes to muggle studies and then uses the TT to go to divination, yes, but while she's in muggle studies, she's in divination at the same time - she's an hour older, but the same Hermione, at the same time. (what's in my head is hard to express thru typing) So she's not missing in a class before she goes back and attends it - she's there, because she used the TT, while she sits in her first class at the same time. I guess it depends on how you look at it - I'm seeing time as being on one line, not different threads, and Hermione can jump to different points on the line at will. If that's a decent way of looking at time, she couldn't have re-taken her charms class, because it had already happened without her - but, hmm. Maybe I'm wrong. I've just confused myself. Hope this makes some bit of sense... Liz > Had she kept her cool and gone back and gone to Charms, Harry and Ron (at > least the ones in that time-thread) would remember her going to Charms. By > the same token, they remember her going to Divination every time, even > though she was in both Divination and Muggle Studies; she went to one > "first" and "then" the other, and no one in either class missed her- -because > she was there. > > Before you say "but that day, she *wasn't* in Charms," let me ask: why > wasn't she? There's no difference between missing a class because you got > stressed out and accidentally went back and took a nap in your common room, > and missing a class because you went to your other class. In each case, you > use your TT at the end of the period you want to re-live, and re- live it. > > Amy Z > who can't keep straight where she has to be when in *one* continuum, thank > you, so will decline to use a TT, however tempting it may be > > _________________________________________________________________ > Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. > http://www.hotmail.com From ambiradams at hotmail.com Sun Jun 16 19:43:49 2002 From: ambiradams at hotmail.com (Ambir Adams) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 12:43:49 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Maturity of kids in Potterverse was Re: So, why did Snape turn on Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39955 >From: "alhewison" >I think it is generally accepted that Harry is less mature than >comparable kids in our world. It is also true that some kids hit >puberty much later than others. I can think of 2 boys in my road at >the moment who are both 14 (and according to their mothers) are only >just starting puberty. So in that respect, I personally don't feel >that Harry is particularly out of kilter. Late maybe, but not >unusual. When you think of all the other changes he is still getting >used to, in the WW, perhaps it is not a wonder that his mind turns to >girls slightly later than other kids. Hmmm...I don't think Harry is less mature when it comes to girls. If I recall Harry started crushing on Cho in PoA, he is 13 years old there. That seems like a good age for boys to start noticing girls. And just because JKR doesnt go into everything about Harry maturing doesn't mean hes not developing at the right speed and time, you have to assume that he is changing. I being a girl would rather not read about everything that happens to boy when they start to mature, just like boys would not want to read about everything that happens to a girl when they start to mature. Some things about growing up are better left unsaid and for good reason. I think Dan will be able to do all seven movies, I mean its not that critical to the book if the movie actor is already changing. Not everything in the movie is exactly like the book. Ryoko Blue _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From draco382 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 17 01:30:53 2002 From: draco382 at yahoo.com (draco382) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 01:30:53 -0000 Subject: Names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39956 archeaologee wrote: > Ron WEASLEY. > > Weasley is a bad name for a good guy. A weasel is not a nice (or > well regarded) animal. Why would JKR do this. I wouldn't mind if it > was a common name like (Dean) Thomas, or ethnic (Longbottom, Patel), > but Weasely isn't either of these things. It seems that the majority > of the names in the HP series inform you of the nature of the > character. I know this, you know this, there are websites dedicated > to this (excellent ones at that - and no I'm not saying this because > I contributed data to one of them). > > I just got so used to Ron, and his name, and his family's name, that > it just slipped under the radar. > Hello, I'm mostly a lurker, but this post made my ears perk up since it reminded me of a post made earlier by Eloise: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/38383 here, there are some really facinating examples of animal symbolism and maybe even a possible reason of why Ron Weasely is Ron Weasely. my two cents! ~draco382 From inkburrow at hotmail.com Mon Jun 17 02:53:51 2002 From: inkburrow at hotmail.com (S. J.) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 19:53:51 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Names Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39957 "archeaologee" wrote: >Weasley is a bad name for a good guy. A weasel is not a nice (or >well regarded) animal. Why would JKR do this. I wouldn't mind if it >was a common name like (Dean) Thomas, or ethnic (Longbottom, Patel), >but Weasely isn't either of these things. It seems that the majority >of the names in the HP series inform you of the nature of the >character. I know this, you know this, there are websites dedicated >to this (excellent ones at that - and no I'm not saying this because >I contributed data to one of them). In some basilisk legends, a weasel was the only animal (aside from a human with a mirror) capable of killing a basilisk. Aside from the fact that Voldemort actually possessed a basilisk at one point (as Diary!Voldemort), the creature was thought to be the king of serpents, which further associates it with Voldemort (as he does have quite a bit of snake imagery surrounding him). Considering this, I think that the name could possibly mean that rather than the Weasleys being sneaky and unpleasant, they're opposed to Voldemort and will help defeat him. --Stephanie, delurking for a moment _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From ntg85 at prodigy.net Mon Jun 17 02:14:24 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 02:14:24 -0000 Subject: Evil Lupin/McGonagall In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39958 >I'm DARRIN! :) David is my evil twin, who wonders why Voldermort >keeps getting this bad rap. Why, so you are! Now, why did I write David? I really don't know, but I apologise profusely. Now please get the shotgun away from my right temple. ;-P > I'm not sure what faulty evidence you refer to, if you mean what I > said about Lupin being too lucrative to turn evil. I'm just pointing > out that when a character is as popular as Lupin is, you think very > carefully before making him a bad guy. No, "faulty evidence" is a misnomer. I have problems sometimes with.. what's it called... You know, knowing a lot of words and stuff... I think it starts with a "B"... Anyway, I meant that some evidence can be interpreted either way. For example, a friend of mine once said that the Cubs are better than the Sox because the Cubs have a pitcher who looks like Abe Lincoln. ***BEFORE THEY START COMING IN, DO NOT REPLY TO THIS! I DO NOT WANT TO GET HOWLERS BECAUSE I LED EVERYONE ON AN OT DEBATE THAT WILL PROBABLY BECOME A BLOODBATH!*** But I pointed out to him that that could be an argument for either side. It all depends on what you think of people who look like Abe Lincoln. Actually, I was referring to the fact that McGonagall didn't make a patronus to ward off Crouch Jr.'s dementor. It can be interpereted several ways: She was too flustered (Oh, yeah, women go to pieces in an emergency, dontcha know), didn't know how, couldn't do it, didn't have time, was trying to off Junior anyway, etc. This one point doesn't serve as very good evidence because it can be interpereted so many ways. > Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, illustrated it perfectly. When > he introducted a cat into the comic strip, hundreds of fans wrote to > him and said: "More Catbert." > > He hadn't named the cat. They just assumed that it would follow > Ratbert, Dogbert, etc... > > Quoth Mr. Adams: "When hundreds of readers spontaneously pick the > same name for the character, it seems a good idea to keep him." > > I think Lupin falls in the same category. > It's not faulty evidence, just evidence that calls on different > sources -- the mood of the marketplace -- rather than clues in the > dialogue. > Understood, but by this logic, Ron, Hermione, Snape, Lupin, Sirius, Ginny, Neville, Fred, George, and Dumbedore cannot be evil. That does somewhat limit the choices. (I am basing popularity on what I've seen at FF.net, as opposed to this nuthouse, where the Order of the Flying Hedgehog rules and Harry Potter himself is evil. ;-) ) > Darrin Burnett > -- Once killed a man for calling him David The Random Monkey, who likes to argue with _Darrin_, and not David, whom if he died, she wouldn't be brokenhearted. From huntleyl at mssm.org Mon Jun 17 03:55:30 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 23:55:30 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Maturity of kids in Potterverse was Re: So, why did Snape turn on References: Message-ID: <012901c215b2$d383fe00$12ccedd1@Huntley> No: HPFGUIDX 39959 >From: "alhewison" >I think it is generally accepted that Harry is less mature than >comparable kids in our world. Just as a side note..sexually, yes, you're right. Emotionally? In the sense of behaving like (fairly healthy) adults? I think Harry and Co. are far ahead of their RL peers in these respects. Ryoko Blue: >Hmmm...I don't think Harry is less mature when it comes to girls. If I >recall Harry started crushing on Cho in PoA, he is 13 years old there. That >seems like a good age for boys to start noticing girls. A good age? Sure. A realistic age? Not by a *long* shot. IRL..in my experience, the boys I knew started *noticing* girls in 5th grade *at the latest*...At that age, I remember my entire class being obsessed with it...who's "going out" with who...etc. I remember a "boyfriend" gave my cousin a gold necklace when they were around 10 or so, I think...I remember, our moms (they're sisters) were *horrified*...but to me, it seemed perfectly natural. In preschool I had a friend who used to get under the picnic tables and kiss various boys..the teacher used to keep her inside for recess. As for me, I was very *aware* of boys from the time I entered kindergarten..I had a raging crush on one boy from the time I was 5 until the time I was 13. And I am *not* the boy-crazed type at all.. far from it. Most of my friends would swear that I've never had any strong feelings towards a particular member of the opposite sex in my life -- but that's just because I would never tell anyone. But if people like *me* got crushes at that early an age -- I imagine the more normal types progress even faster. Ryoko: And just because >JKR doesn't go into everything about Harry maturing doesn't mean hes not >developing at the right speed and time, you have to assume that he is >changing. I being a girl would rather not read about everything that >happens to boy when they start to mature, just like boys would not want to >read about everything that happens to a girl when they start to mature. ^_~ Are you so sure of that? Ryoko Blue: >Some things about growing up are better left unsaid and for good reason. mmm...Maybe I'm a freak, but I believe that *all* the parts of growing up should be okay to talk about. IMO, the cultural taboo on things like menstruation, wet dreams, and masturbation is not only ridiculous, but damaging. They aren't dirty, and hushing them up is only going to make a kid that is already frightened and uncertain by the changes in his or her body feel guilty and unclean as well. *looks down* Hmmm..now where did this soapbox come from anyway? *steps down, looking slightly embarrassed* However, I can see where these things aren't really a part of the story JKR is trying to tell...The books aren't really supposed to be about how Harry deals with puberty, now are they? No, he's definitely got bigger fish to fry, poor kid. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chetah27 at hotmail.com Mon Jun 17 04:48:26 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 04:48:26 -0000 Subject: Lupin/Moody (WAS Re: Would JKR Make Lupin Evil?) In-Reply-To: <3d.1f92f25b.2a39711a@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39960 Debbie wrote: >In PoA, Lupin now has two secrets: the werewolf secret he's keeping >from the >students, and the animagus secret he's keeping from Dumbledore. He's >so >haunted by the possible consequences of his secrets being discovered >that he >doesn't want to tell anyone anything, because it might put him on >the >slippery slope of telling too much. >So he's become the master of understatement, reluctant to reveal >anything, >and always in control of his emotions. His manner is mild, his >speech >controlled. He even smiles at his enemies and speaks kindly of them, >as he >does when Snape brings him the potion. (ch. 8, p. 156) I have to say that this, which I fully agree with, helps to shoot down the Evil!Lupin Theory's support of Lupin's likenesses to Crouch! Moody. As Debbie said, because of the secrets and guilt he was carrying, Lupin did "become the master of understatement, reluctant to reveal anything, and always in control of his emotions. His manner is mild, his speech controlled." And Crouch!Moody did very much the same thing. Barty Jr. had to play the role of Moody- and as we see, not much time to prepare for it. He escaped the night of the World Cup, correct? He then still had to capture Alabaster "Mad-Eye" Moody. He had to be the slightly crazy, completely paranoid, yet very knowledgeable and very seasoned Aurora that Real!Moody is. His words were chosen, he had to react the way Moody would and not let himself slip- a slip up could lead to disaster, as it could also in Lupin's case. Also, I think Lupin's choosiness with his words also leads people to see the double-sidedness of them. All of this, I think, is why people see so many similarities between them. I don't see Lupin as evil in the least. I see him as a normal, flawed person. People make mistakes- they sometimes keep quiet when it might have been better not to do so, they might have thought they were doing the right thing, tried to do the right thing, but came out with the wrong thing happening in the end. ~Aldrea (I've somehow gotten about 6 pages behind [darned attempts to actually get a life =P], so I'm sorry if any of this has been said- I'm tryinng to catch up, really.) From lmccabe at sonic.net Mon Jun 17 06:06:40 2002 From: lmccabe at sonic.net (linda_mccabe) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 06:06:40 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Why Evil!Moody and Sirius/Arabella pillow talk didn't work In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39961 Cindy wrote: > OK, I am completely Shocked! > > Stunned! > > Slack-jawed, even! > > I just checked the Ever So Evil Poll, and only *two people* have > voted that Moody will be Ever So Evil. And I'm one of those two > people! That means that the percentage of list membership that > believes in Evil!Moody is . . . > > > > .024606299212598425196850393700787e-4. > > What *is* that, anyway? That's not even a *number,* is it? > > Sheez! Twice as many people voted for *Evil!Winky* than Evil! > Moody! What is going *on* here? > (massive snippage of an excellent post regarding her theory on Evil! Moody) -The reason that I have a *problem* with Evil!Moody is not that he might have been secretly evil to the core in the past, is that I just can't buy that he will be Ever So Evil in the future. That just is because I'm trying to put one foot in his shoe (and figure out what to do with my other foot 'cause it won't fit in his pegleg). If I had been a top secret agent of Rookwood and was so secret that Voldemort didn't even know of my existence, sure I'd be worried - but I'd also be incredibly *cheesed off* for being held hostage in a trunk for 10 months, being starved and under incredible mind control games. Heck, if Severus Snape can turn sides and become a former-Death Eater, then poor tortured Real Moody could decide To Heck with Being Secretly Evil! I'm turning back to Dumbledore's side where everyone thought I belonged anyway. Then again, once the gates of Azkaban are opened and Rookwood comes out...you don't know what secrets he held over Moody to make him be a deep mole in the first place. So, if *I* were Moody and felt that everyone was out to kill me on every side, I'd do it on my own accord. Yup! I'd find some nice Draught of the Living Death and off myself. BANG! Or do you think suicide is a bit too harsh for JKR to give the little kiddies... He won't be betraying Dumbledore because he'll be pushing up daisies soon. Then Eloise >I never quite understood *why* the Sirius/Arabella partnership was >abandoned. >I never thought the objections were strong enough to completely >disprove it; >I rather warm to it, myself. and Charis Julia: I never quite got that myself. Was there perhaps some shattering post that I missed? I'm not quite sure I quite I buy the idea that Sirius was hanging out in Arabella's bedroom at the beginning of PoA, mind you. I do still object to that. But surely that doesn't disprove the rest of the theory, does it? Athena: This is why I don't believe there was any Sirius/Arabella pillow talk at the beginning of PoA. It was the idea that if Sirius visited his old flame and she told him some information about Harry after they resumed their relationship. This was quickly dismissed once you put yourself in Arabella's sheets. As Dead!Sexy as we know Sirius has the potential to be, if you had a former lover that had just escaped from prison come to your doorstep wouldn't the first thing you'd do would try to help them *change their appearance*? I mean that is if you were so deeply in love with them that you would either 1) forgive them anything or 2) simply not believe any bad word spoken against them because My Sweetie Pie Would Never Do Anything Wrong. Heck, if I were Arabella and had an intimate past with Sirius and he showed up on my doorstep...if I believed his innocence the first thing would be to cut his hair, shave his beard, give him a good bath, get new clothes and come up with a good cover to help him escape the Muggle and Wizarding patrols. It might not do any good with the Dementors, but heck everyone else has eyes don't they? No, since Sirius still had filthy matted hair - he hadn't contacted anyone that cared for him. However, I'm still holding out that he'll staying in a nice house over the summer. Say a few streets away from Harry? And maybe catching up with an old friend and future flame...Both Sirius and Arabella have got to have a lot of built up sexual tension after all these years alone. That too would have a big BANG, although a different meaning in this context. ;-) Athena From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Mon Jun 17 08:21:26 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 08:21:26 -0000 Subject: MAGIC DISHWASHER issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39962 Joe wrote: > I'm very attracted to the MAGIC DISHWASHER theory. I like the > way it complicates the notions of good and evil, and makes the > Potterverse so much more real than many fantasy lands. Welcome, then, to the group. That's one of the reasons I liked it so much, too. I also like the notion of the spy war coupled with the terrorist war. > That said, I have a few problems. > > First of all, one of the premises of the theory is that at the time > of the Shrieking Shack, if I recall correctly, > 1. Both Dumbeldore and Snape know that Pettigrew/Scabbers is > evil, and that he is an animagus. > 2. Both Dumbeldore and Snape know that Sirius is an > animagus. > 3. Dumbeldore has no idea whether or not Sirius is evil. He > knows that he was not the secret keeper, and did not betray the > Potters to Voldemort in that way, but is still unsure as to whether > he is/was a Death Eater. > 4. Snape is utterly convinced that Sirius is evil. > Given all this, I simply cannot understand why Dumbledore > would allow Sirius to run around as an animagus all year, > breaking into the school, slashing up paintings, endangering the > students. I think he would most certainly have told everybody in > power to be on the lookout for a big black dog. They where trying to set up a situation where Harry could get life-debts to the two of them. I realised that yesterday (in chat, of all places!): Harry has styablished life-debt to both Peter AND Sirius. Dumbledore neeedn't know exactly which of the two was going to go running back to Voldemort, so he works so that in all of the cases the real traitor has the life-debt. Even in the case BOTH are traitors, and BOTH go running to Voldemort, V will have to choose for his flesh of the servant between two equally flawed products. I'd throw Lupin into the pattern too: Dumbledore was hoping to put Sirius and Lupin in the same cell, and then have Harry rescue them, but didn't expect Lupin to forget his potion, and Lupin transforming was another big problem with the plan. Well, two out of three ain't bad. Back to your question, Dumbledore did stablish security measures that should've stopped Sirius, except for the big holes he didn't know about. Telling everyone to look for a big, black dog is very difficult, and redundant. The people guarding the school were going to stop everything from roaming (except maybe crookshanks, thinking it Filch's cat). > The responses to this question that have been suggested so far > operate on the assumption that Dumbledore knew Sirius was > innocent once he learned that Pettigrew was guilty. But I don't > see any evidence of this. Also, that wasn't the original theory. > Has the theory changed? What is the reasoning behind the > switch? See above. I have been patching the thery quite a bit lately to make it fit the details, and make it more belivable, so I'm not sure what you're refering to here. But if Dumbledore has been working on the assumption "one of the three marauders left is a traitor", things fit. > Second, while I personally love the idea of Grey Dumbledore, I > feel that this is explicitly denied by canon: It looks like it, too. But when I say that you can participate in a spy game while remaining White, my credibility gets hurt, so I normally refrain from saying it. Anyway, saying that Dumbledore is White because he's called Albus is metathinking. And Mcgonagall could have the wrong idea of Dumbledore, after all. But no, even if do use the Dumbkedore the Grey figure, that doesn't make him less good to my eyes. > Or are we suggesting that he was white in VWI and time, > coupled with a victory that was neither permanent nor complete, > has sullied is noble spirit? No, I never said or even implied that. Destroying Grindewald must have taken some not-so-white tricks, too. But using a machine gun doesn't nake you evil, if it's to protect someone else. As long as he doesn't use Dark Arts, I think Dumbledore's soul will be clean. > On the other hand, I'd like to offer a theory in favor of MAGIC > DISHWASHER. > > > Joe, who is getting exhausted from this crazy posting wave. I like it, if we expand "Peter" to mean "any Voldemort spy". Maybe they had that little conversation two or three times: in front of Lupin (asking for the oppinion of the DADA teacher) and Peter (maybe while discussing with Hagrid?). I cannot fanthom a way to get it to Sirius, but Dumbledore and Snape are more intelligent than I am. Maybe they left a note where he could find it. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From igenite_olwyn at blueyonder.co.uk Mon Jun 17 08:33:49 2002 From: igenite_olwyn at blueyonder.co.uk (Olwyn) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 09:33:49 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Maturity of kids in Potterverse was Re: So, why did Snape turn on References: Message-ID: <002801c215d9$b52b5e40$0200a8c0@blueyonder.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 39963 Ali wrote: >>Another point I think is that British kids are still less sophisticated than their American counterparts. This is a generalisation, and one which is changing rapidly. But, in every TV programme I see with American High School kids, I always think that the kids seem much older than British children of the same age. I know the actors are often in their 20's, so they look older, but they seem older in their attitudes as well. So I think that JKR is painting a slightly anachronistic picture of adolescent development, which fits in with Harry as a late starter in the WW, but one which would not be that unusual in British Muggle Society.<< As someone who was recently declared online to be uncultured and uneducated for not being American I had to reply to this. I'm sorry, but this is incredibly insulting to anyone outside of the US. You're judging RL British Kids by American TV Programmes?!? Those people are actors, like you said in their 20s, yes their attitidues will seem different because they carry a chunk of themselves into the roles and that chunk isn't a teenager any more, chances are what they were like when they were a teenager is radically different from hat they actually are now. Not only that the programmes are written by Adults, it's not accurate, it's what they'd like it to be and what suits the situation they want to create. Dont run down British Kids on the basis of a TV Programme, it's fake and scripted, RL isn't!! Olly Who will apologise to the mods now for being off topic, but that really irked me. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at aol.com Mon Jun 17 08:52:24 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 04:52:24 EDT Subject: A case against Evil Lupin Message-ID: <1a3.3d46f4b.2a3efd48@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39964 Pippin: > ho still wants to know why JKR told us there was extra > wolfsbane potion around if it isn't important. > "I made an entire cauldronful," Snape continued. "If you need more." Ch. 8 PoA. One thing Snape's comment tells me is that Snape is in control of the potion; he keeps it and doles it out to Lupin as needed. Lupin doesn't keep his own supply; he has to get it from Snape on a dose-by-dose basis. I think this is important to set up Snape's bringing the potion to Lupin's office on June 6. The other think that struck me about the quote is the fact that it suggests that there's not a standard dose for the potion. Snape remarks that he made an entire cauldronful "if you need more." And Lupin responds that he should "probably take some again tomorrow." If it's so unclear how much potion Lupin needs to be harmless, could Lupin have forgotten to take his potion on June 6 because he thought he'd taken enough? Did he like Snape bringing him the potion like some kind of servant? I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm less inclined toward In Denial! Lupin these days. Pippin continues: Which establishes that Snape makes more wolfsbane potion at a time than Lupin needs. We know that it is easy to break into Snape's office, and Lupin can also enter through the fireplace.So, if Lupin wanted to pretend that he hadn't taken his potion when he actually had, it wouldn't seem to be too difficult. I can see how Lupin could have broken into Snape's office, since he tells us a wizard could break his locking spells. We also know that Dobby was able to get into Snape's office and steal gillyweed. However, Snape seems to have an excellent knowledge of his inventory, so that he noticed the missing stores of boomslang skin and gillyweed. (GoF, ch. 25, p. 471 US) I also believe Snape knew exactly how much of the wolfsbane potion he had prepared and kept track of it, especially since he was keeping his eye on Lupin. So while Lupin could have stolen the potion, I think Snape would have noticed it missing (though maybe not until after the Shrieking Shack events). As nobody else at Hogwarts besides Lupin had any use for the potion, Lupin would have been suspected of stealing it. And unless Snape did not tell Dumbledore, I can't imagine that Dumbledore would have trusted Lupin enough at the end of GoF to send Sirius to his place. So, I don't think Lupin stole the potion. I also think Lupin's behavior when he transforms is not consistent with having taken the potion and exercising human control. Lupin starts snarling the moment he begins to transform, then rears up and starts snapping his jaws, which is more like the fully fledged monster than the harmless wolf. If he was in control of himself, it seems to me that he wouldn't begin to act vicious until he was ready to pounce upon his victims -- and I presume he would have begun with Sirius in order to catch him by surprise before he had a chance to transform and control him. And to answer one more point of Pippin's from an earlier post (which I had written several days ago but which the computer ate when I lost my internet connection): She explained why Voldemort's supporters would go after Pettigrew. She even had Pettigrew fake his death twice, so that Lupin could truthfully say: "Everyone thought Sirius had killed Peter. I believed it myself..until I saw the Map tonight," even if he had initially gone to Hogwarts because he'd learned that Peter was alive. If Lupin returned to Hogwarts because he learned that Peter was alive, what about Pettigrew's faking his death at Crookshanks' hand would have made Lupin believe Sirius had done it? Even if Lupin had seen Crookshanks with Padfoot, Sirius would only have been an accessory to the crime, and this statement would not have been truly accurate. Debbie who for the record does not want Lupin to become a poster-child for the disabled [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ali at zymurgy.org Mon Jun 17 10:00:56 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:00:56 -0000 Subject: Maturity of kids in Potterverse In-Reply-To: <002801c215d9$b52b5e40$0200a8c0@blueyonder.co.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39966 I wrote: >Another point I think is that British kids are still less > sophisticated than their American counterparts. This is a > generalisation, and one which is changing rapidly. But, in every TV > programme I see with American High School kids, I always think that > the kids seem much older than British children of the same age. I > know the actors are often in their 20's, so they look older, but they seem older in their attitudes as well. So I think that JKR is > painting a slightly anachronistic picture of adolescent development, which fits in with Harry as a late starter in the WW, but one which would not be that unusual in British Muggle Society.<< > > Olwyn was very upset and said:- > As someone who was recently declared online to be uncultured and uneducated for not being American I had to reply to this. I'm sorry, but this is incredibly insulting to anyone outside of the US. You're judging RL British Kids by American TV Programmes?!? Those people are actors, like you said in their 20s, yes their attitidues will seem different because they carry a chunk of themselves into the roles and that chunk isn't a teenager any more, chances are what they were like when they were a teenager is radically different from hat they actually are now. Not only that the programmes are written by Adults, it's not accurate, it's what they'd like it to be and what suits the situation they want to create. Dont run down British Kids on the basis of a TV Programme, it's fake and scripted, RL isn't!! > > > Olly > Firstly, I am sorry that you felt upset. I was writing from my point of view. I was following on from this statement of Darrin's:- Harry Potter, on the other hand, is nearly 14 before we get a sense > of him hitting puberty. > To me, that's just one more of the rules JKR has introduced. She's > taken us back to a time when the equivalent of American fifth- and > sixth-graders were not exploring their sexuality. My understanding of American culture can only be based on what I see on the TV, from Media and from lists such as HPfGU. I was agreeing with Darrin that IMO Harry Potter is looking back to a slightly bybone age - but with the proviso that *I* think British kids grow up slower than their American counterparts. This is not an insult. In fact, when I looked up the word "sophisticated" in the dictionnary, Americans could have been insulted as the definition given is:- "deprive (person,thing) of natural simplicity. Which again was not my intention. If my perceptions of US kids are taken from the US media, that is because that is the image that they are trying to give to the outside world - and to their own audiences. My perception of British children is based on personal experience, and that is the perception I used when reading te Potterverse. Any greater understanding of US culture, or indeed any other culture must come from personal experience - and discussion. One of my particular reasons for enjoying HPfGU so much is that it does give people an opportunity to share cultures and experiences, as we tend to interpret the Potterverse based on our own understanding and culture. I believe that this forum should be open, and we should feel able to agree and disagree with one another - but not to insult. A different view point does not mean an insult is intended. Different culture does not mean uncultured nor uneducated. I have never seen or written anything on this list which portrays one culture as being somehow superior or better than any other. Indeed, I believe that is contrary to the purpose of this list. JKR's philosophy, which seems to encompass the desire to show differences should be understood and embraced (as far as possible) is one that I personally respect and try to adhere to. (A rather stung) Ali Who loves learning about other cultures and linguistical differences, but is still happy with her own culture. From elfundeb at aol.com Mon Jun 17 10:14:28 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 06:14:28 EDT Subject: Deconstructing Harry/TBAY Apology Message-ID: <9c.21810d2d.2a3f1084@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39967 This message is really a reply to violetbaudelaire's questions on agency/free will, but first I want to apologize for posting my reply in support of Cindy's Evil! Moody manifesto to the main list in error, as there wasn't any canon in it. Please accept my humble apology. I know it was like those annoying phone calls I always get from the opposing party reminding me to go to the polls and vote for their candidate. Nevertheless, Cindy could use your support, if you're so inclined and haven't voted. . . In a message dated 6/15/2002 11:39:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, violetbaudelaire2002 at yahoo.com writes: > Free will, agency, is on shakey ground here because what each > character does is, in effect, what the other character has wanted > them to do, even planned for them to do. Most notably it is the > children in the series who have no free will, or so it would seem. > In the first few books it would seem that Harry is easily led (or at > least the case can be made as such), but remember- he can > easily throw off the Imperious Curse (which, oddly enough, is a > rarity- further proof for my "no agency" argument). I'm not sure > what to make of that. Maybe children are where the hope lies; > they must be the ones to work together to overcome duplicity > (diversity is a common theme in the book- in order to overcome > all of this duplicity, one must overcome prejudices). It will be > interesting to watch Percy, as he is the only character we have > seen to date that moves from childhood (or pupildom at least) > into the adult world. > > I don't think the children of the Potterverse lack free will at all. The adults do a lot of things to influence their judgment, but that's what adults in general do; that's how adults assist in helping children develop their own values. Dumbledore can give Harry all the information and tools that he needs, but ultimately Harry makes his own choice to go through the trapdoor and protect the Stone. Snape's actions at the duelling club revealed to Harry that he's a Parselmouth, but that was only information that he would need *if* he chose to look for the Chamber of Secrets. In fact, I'm not at all convinced that Snape knew Harry was a Parselmouth. Again, Harry and Ron made the choice to go find the Chamber themselves, without any express suggestion from anyone. I think Harry is much closer to being deprived of free will when he is forced to compete in the Triwizard Tournament because a "binding magical contract" has been created. Still, Harry retained free will to decide how he was going to compete or whether he would try to win or not. Indeed, he offered to let Cedric take the cup. So, within the constraints of others' actions, Harry still exercised free will and nearly thwarted Crouch Jr.'s attempt to send him to the graveyard. This is because what happens to an individual -- any individual, not just in the Potterverse -- is not just the result of that person's choices, but is the result of the intersection of the choices of many. There is one other situation in which free will is taken away in the Potterverse and that is, of course, the Imperius Curse. And perhaps that's a good reason why it's Unforgivable. And even with Imperius, the loss of free will is not absolute, because it can (evntually) be resisted by those with the "strength of character" to do so, as Crouch/Moody says. That resistance begins, as Harry illustrates, with the realization that you don't have to do what you're told. In other words, even in the context of Imperius, you only lack free will if you think you lack it. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Mon Jun 17 11:06:56 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 11:06:56 -0000 Subject: So, why did Snape turn on Voldermort? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39968 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "joeblackish" wrote: > Put it all together, and I think that Snape switched his allegiance > for entirely selfish motives. > > That ambitious drive in Snape's belly told him that he would > never get the power and recognition he wanted as long as he > was with Voldemort. In fact, working for an evil nutcase like that > is downright dangerous ? the guy's in a bad mood one day and > all those evil deeds were for nothing. > > No, much better to work for someone like Dumbledore, who > keeps his promises and passes out credit where credit is do. > Also, unlike Da V-miester, Dumbledore will actually die someday > and leave the top spot open. Yeah, but it's not like Dumbledore is Minister of Magic or Grand Poo- Bah of anything. The "top spot" he's leaving open is Headmastership of Hogwarts. A nice, respectable job, to be sure, but I can't see that it offers much to a person of overweening ambition. No untold riches. Very limited power. No glamour or glory. Dumbledore is famous and influential because he's Dumbledore, not because he's Headmaster. And Snape isn't even second in line for the job -- McGonagall is. No, given what Voldemort does to traitors, I seriously doubt that Snape would turn on him just because he hoped that fifty years down the line he'd get to be the guy who makes the pre-dinner speech at the Sorting Feast every year. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From naama_gat at hotmail.com Mon Jun 17 11:25:39 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 11:25:39 -0000 Subject: The Betrayer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39969 Cold hearted Joeblackish said: Scenario: 1. Hagrid gets drunk and lets something slip, something that will allow Voldemort to get at Dumbledore and probably kill him. 2. Voldemort takes advantage of this and comes within about an inch of killing Dumbledore in whatever way Hagrid tipped him off to. 3. Hagrid sobers up and realizes what he's done, and nobly throws himself in Dumbledore's place, sacrificing himself to save D's life. I love this because its totally in character for Hagrid, it still supports D's second chance/trusting philosophy, and most of all, it gets rid of that annoying clod. I really can't stand Hagrid. He's so boring. And such a big baby. I hope he eats it in OoP. Naama: Oy! That's my favorite character you're offing, mate. Based on metathinking ;-), I have to say that it's highly unlikely, IMO, for Hagrid to "get drunk and let something slip." It has happened already (PS) and JKR showed us Hagrid horrified and full of remorse at what he'd done. It would be ... well, boring and lacking in Bang to have the same thing happen twice. OTOH, I can see JKR using it as a red herring. That is, people (and the reader) will suspect Hagrid, when the real culprit will be somebody else (I just hope it won't involve any more illegal Animagi!). Joeblackish: But on the other hand, Hagrid's screwed up time and time again. In fact, his drinking/foolish trusting/incompetence as a teacher/et cetera has caused a major problem in every single book. It seems to be a pretty major pattern. Naama: Beside his big screwup in PS, when did he show himself to be untrustworthy? In CoS he is most unfairly thrown to Azkaban based on his past crime (for which, as we know, he was framed by Tom Riddle). In PoA, he didn't do anything wrong. I disagree with those who think that Hagrid misjudged in his choice of beasts for the first lesson and put the blame squarely on Draco and his Dad. He was - *again* - framed. In GoF ? I really don't see that he did anything wrong. In telling Madam Maxime that he is half a giant? Well, he might have picked up a more discrete setting for doing that. But again, it was Rita Skeeter's illegal sneaking about that caused the harm. He should not be blamed for other peoples' malice. Bad people use his unique combination of clumsiness, gentleness, loyalty, naivetee and too-big-to-be-allowed-ness to frame him for acts of viciousness that are completely foreign to his nature. In the next book, we're probably going to see Hagrid suffer under a new source of prejudice, being known as a half giant. Malfoy and others will no doubt jump on this opportunity to use this prejudice against him. Hagrid is the fall guy. He gets the blame and suffers for things he didn't do, or isn't responsible for. That is a much more important narrative role (IMO) than the one incident where he drank and blabbed. In other words, it is not Hagrid's narrative role to do things that harm his friends. But it *is* his "job" to suffer under false allegations and prejudice, but still hold strong to his loyalty and essential goodness. Joeblackish: I'm torn about the Hagrid inadvertently betraying Dumbledore theory. On the one hand, it seems like it HAS to happen. As people have pointed out before, that "I would trust Hagrid with my life," just SCREAMS for that plan to fail. Hello, Albus, could you be any less obvious about predicting your own death? Naama: Call me na?ve (or Faith), but I see Dumbledore's line as a simple foreshadowing. Hagrid *will* be proven as trustworthy and *will* save Dumbledore's life. I just hope that he survives the ordeal . Naama From naama_gat at hotmail.com Mon Jun 17 13:28:05 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:28:05 -0000 Subject: So, why did Snape turn on Voldermort? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39970 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "joeblackish" wrote: > In the spirit of guessing why Snape may have turned on > Voldemort, I wonder if we might consider something other than > his genuine goodness or an attack of conscience, etc. > > What if it was Snape's inner-Slytherin gnawing him to leave > Voldemort? > > > That ambitious drive in Snape's belly told him that he would > never get the power and recognition he wanted as long as he > was with Voldemort. In fact, working for an evil nutcase like that > is downright dangerous ? the guy's in a bad mood one day and > all those evil deeds were for nothing. > > No, much better to work for someone like Dumbledore, who > keeps his promises and passes out credit where credit is do. > Also, unlike Da V-miester, Dumbledore will actually die someday > and leave the top spot open. > > Yes, that's right. Severus betrayed his master for no other > reason than he was looking out for number one. He switched > sides solely for personal gain. He's ambitious to the core, and > knew he would never get the glory he deserves from that crazy > monster. > It's a nice theory and would, in fact, be very convincing, except for one thing: Dumbledore's complete trust in Snape. For some reason (one of the Great HP Mysteries), Dumbledore is certain that Snape is loyal to him and to the Light Side. Dumbledore knows Snape to be truly on the Light Side, but if Snape switched because of ambition, I don't see how Dumbledore can be so sure of him. A person who switches sides for such a reason can just as easily switch sides again, if the other side offers something better. IOW, it isn't a change of heart, and I don't think that Dumbledore would trust Snape if he wasn't sure that Snape had gone through a change of heart. Naama From cherryflip at clara.co.uk Mon Jun 17 04:59:58 2002 From: cherryflip at clara.co.uk (Jodi Bailey) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 05:59:58 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Names References: Message-ID: <00dc01c215bb$d4ea7cc0$7dc97ad5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 39971 ----- Original Message ----- From: "archeaologee" > One of my favourite things about HP is the use of language, > especially JKR's ear for how words sound. Me too, it's the thing that first got me hooked. > there is a staggering > exception to this rule. > > Ron WEASLEY. > > Weasley is a bad name for a good guy. A weasel is not a nice (or > well regarded) animal. Why would JKR do this. This reminded me of something from one of the Scholastic chat transcripts ( http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm ) - Rowling says her favourite animal is the otter. Weasels belong to the same family as otters, polecats and stoats, which all fit in with the place the Weasleys live - Ottery St. Catchpole, the River Otter, Stoatshead Hill... So would this indicate some significance of this whole group of animals, some symbolism of the weasel with the connection of the place names being incidental, or just Rowling making a stand against anti-weasel prejudice? ;o) Jodi (New to this list, and hoping this post isn't just stating the obvious - I'd never noticed the connections before, at least...) From nmfry at hotmail.com Mon Jun 17 07:54:47 2002 From: nmfry at hotmail.com (N Fry) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 07:54:47 +0000 Subject: MAGIC DISHWASHER and UglyBaby!Voldemort (long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39972 ***All canon references are taken from the hardcover US edition of GoF. A word of warning - I suspect I may have to get *very* wordy in an attempt to explain my thinking on this. You may want to get comfortable before you start. Now, I'll admit right off the bat that I'm not too sure about this whole MAGIC DISHWASHER thing. I understand the thinking of the supporters and admire the zeal with which they defend their theory...it just seems to leave too much up to chance and coincidence for my taste. But that's just my two knuts. I still enjoy reading all about it. There has been a lot of debate about this topic lately. I've noticed that both sides of the argument have avoided a little point that I've been a bit curious about. The end result of the MD theory is that our heroes need to get Voldemort into a bodily (aka killable) form. They can't exactly destroy an evil vapor. I can accept that. I've also noticed that the MD supporters focus on the post-potion version of Voldemort when discussing the desired mortal form. My question is: Why do they have to wait until he is in his restored adult body? What about UglyBaby!Voldemort? If Dumbledore & Co. are looking for a Voldemort that they can destroy, UglyBaby!Voldemort is ideal. He admits to Wormtail how helpless he is - "I am no stronger, and a few days alone would be enough to rob me of the little health I have regained under your clumsy care." (Ch 1 pg 9). He's the most evil wizard in the world, and he has to be bottle fed every few hours. He can't even care for himself (although he does manage to easily AK Frank Bryce). I'm sure Wormtail wouldn't be too much protection. A few well trained Aurors would probably be able to take the two of them. The book says that Voldemort was in UglyBaby! form as a way to exist until all the ingredients for the potion were collected, but it doesn't say if it was necessary that he be in that form for the potion to work. For the sake of argument, let's say that UglyBaby!Voldemort was a necessary ingredient. Wormtail had to have something to drop in the cauldron... If our heroes were as thoroughly familiar with the potion as the MD theory says they are (since they carefully researched all of their options), then they would have realized this crucial step. JKR doesn't give us details as to how exactly one goes about turning vapor into an Ugly Baby. I'm guessing it's probably a fairly complex process. Seeing as Wormtail isn't the best wizard in the world, it would have probably been safe for Dumbledore and friends to assume that he wouldn't be performing both spells in one night. In fact, it may have been impossible. Since Voldemort needs to be nursed back to health after the UglyBaby! spell, he may have not been strong enough to survive the potion right away. Plus, doing the two on different nights is a time saver. If they already have the UglyBaby! step out of the way, they can mix up the potion as soon as Harry joins their little party. They don't have to take time out to wait for Wormtail to struggle through the UB! spell while the cauldron's warming up. If there is a necessary delay between the two stages of returning Voldemort to full adult form, shouldn't our heroes have known about that? It seems like kind of an important detail to overlook. I can't imagine that, while doing their research, they read Grey Wolf's (?) fine print about servants with life debts and blood donors with mysterious protections, but missed the even finer print about the potion only working on Ugly Babies, not vaporous gases. Granted, they didn't know when UglyBaby!Voldemort would be created, but they also didn't know when the potion would be created. IIRC, some people have suggested that Papa Riddle's cemetery plot was being watched. Assuming that they had people looking for signs of the potion being prepared, wouldn't it have made sense to also have them on the lookout for signs of UglyBaby!Voldemort? Now, because I'm so nice, here's a possible explanation: Perhaps this falls under the multiple back-up plans clause of the MD theory. Maybe Dumbledore was getting ready to launch "Operation Seek And Destroy UglyBaby!" But, being the preplanning guy that MD says he is, he realized that he needed to make sure that he had all of his bases covered. You know how inconsiderate those Dark Wizards can be. They insist on working on their own schedule, regardless of whether or not you're prepared to deal with them. So, just in case our heroes couldn't find UglyBaby!Voldemort or Wormtail was able to gather all of the potion ingredients more quickly than they had expected, Dumbledore drew up plans for "Operation Exploit Potion's Flaw By Insuring That Harry's Blood Is Used." I bet the MD supporters wish that everyone who pointed out potential holes in their theory was considerate enough to provide a possible explanation. Especially Grey Wolf, who's been writing nonstop since we were first introduced to the MAGIC DISHWASHER. But this is just my little attempt at answering my own question... I'd love to hear any other explanation of why the vulnerability of UglyBaby!Voldemort seems to be overlooked by MD. ~ Nik (who is *incredibly* disturbed by the mental image she gets when reading about UglyBaby!Voldemort, especially when he stretches his arms up to Wormtail to be picked up and dropped in the cauldron ) _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From crana at ntlworld.com Mon Jun 17 10:52:18 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 11:52:18 +0100 Subject: Evil Anyone - Snake Duelling References: Message-ID: <005d01c215ed$0d99a240$0fb168d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 39973 random monkey said: "Understood, but by this logic, Ron, Hermione, Snape, Lupin, Sirius, Ginny, Neville, Fred, George, and Dumbedore cannot be evil. That does somewhat limit the choices." The point has been made that the actual evil-doer in each book tends to be a new character, or one you didn't even think was human (e.g. Scabbers) so it's probably fairly hard to predict who will turn evil if this continues, and also means that it's not really limiting the choices for evildoers if you ignore these people. A new point, though: JKR has said that her books are very moral places, and we see this particularly in Dumbledore's conversations with Harry, e.g. "It is our choices that make us who we are..." (approximate quotation). It just seems wrong that someone like Dumbledore would actually be working for Voldemort, or that Voldemort will eventually triumph: it seems at odds with the Good vs Evil battle that is central to the series. Evil can't triumph! That just doesn't happen! Good sort of *has* to win, albeit with sacrifices, or there was no point in making it such a moral place to begin with, if you're then going to tell people: "Nah, forget what I said about being good, you loser". ------------------ Debbie said: "Snape's actions at the duelling club revealed to Harry that he's a Parselmouth, but that was only information that he would need *if* he chose to look for the Chamber of Secrets. In fact, I'm not at all convinced that Snape knew Harry was a Parselmouth." Going on the premise that Snape isn't actually trying to kill anyone at Hogwarts (he protects Harry when Quirrel is cursing him on the broom, etc), if Snape deliberately showed Harry he was a Parselmouth to enable him to talk to the basilisk, that means Snape knew it was a basilisk that was attacking students. Wouldn't he reveal this? Even if he wasn't particularly fond of the students who were attacked, it would be a nice opportunity for Snape to show off his knowledge, and he could even volunteer some Basilisk-slaying strategies. Surely that would enhance his DADA application in the future? Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From crana at ntlworld.com Mon Jun 17 11:06:17 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 12:06:17 +0100 Subject: SHIP: Dobby/Winky References: Message-ID: <000001c215ef$d4d52260$0fb168d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 39974 I don't know if this has been suggested before, but what about Dobby/Winky? They are the only house elves we actually know anything about, and while they seem to have very different attitudes in GOF (Dobby loves freedom/Winky thinks it's very shameful), now the Crouches are dead, maybe Winky will loosen up a bit? Even though Harry says its hard to tell the sex of house elves, they do seem to have families etc - Winky talks about her mother and grandmother serving the Crouches before her. Dobby seems to be a strapping young house elf making his way ahead in the WW. Could his next stop be a lovely, squashed-tomato-nose girlfriend? They paired up to seek work - suggesting friendship, at least - and he certainly seems very concerned about her: at the end of GOF, when Winky is distraught, Dumbledore advises in a meaningful sort of way that Dobby will probably look after her. Why Dobby? Assuming Winky knows any of the other elves at Hogwarts yet, wouldn't her girl-elf friends be in a better position to comfort her than Dobby, who Winky is always saying is "bad"? Dobby is definitely someone who is very caring and protective (the Gillyweed episode, the beautiful hand-knitted socks), and with Crouch Jnr out of the picture, Winky needs someone to look after. She was used to a more personal involvement with people than the rest of the house elves, who seem to just cook and clean. Could Dobby and baby elves be the way ahead? Rosie From bard7696 at aol.com Mon Jun 17 11:50:48 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 11:50:48 -0000 Subject: So, why did Snape turn on Voldermort? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39975 Joe Black wrote: > Snape is clearly NOT a nice person. Snape doesn't seem to > care about hurting others at all. Yes, I realize that Crucio is a little > more extreme than yelling at your students, but I think its > important that we realize that this is someone who feels its > appropriate to publicly mock a thirteen-year old nerdy girl about > her large teeth in front of her enemies. (And I think any former > thirteen-year old, girl or boy, can attest to the scars that sort of > treatment can leave). > DB: I think Snape has special hatred for Hermione because he sees a lot of himself in her. Snape very likely came to Hogwarts as a know- it-all -- knew more curses than most seventh-years -- but perhaps he didn't have the same kind of friendship that Ron and Harry have given Hermione. Ron felt bad about insulting her and they went and saved her, and then she lied to save them. Maybe Snape never got that. And he despises Hermione for having the best of both worlds -- the top student in her class AND good friendships. The counter-argument, just to play devil's advocate, is that Snape has to be so mean as part of his cover. If he wasn't so hateful, Draco and the others would go running to their Death-Eater dads, complaining about Snape being a "Gryffindor Lover", which would raise suspicions. I subscribe to a mix of these. Snape has to maintain his cover, but it is certainly NOT a strain for him to do so. > While I will not dispute that Snape is clearly devoted to the side > of good (in fact, that's key to what I'm about to say), I don't think > Snape has any sort of conscience at all. His actions attest to the > fact that he doesn't care about hurting others. > > So there we go. Point number one, Snape is not a nice person > who doesn't feel a stitch of regret about his behavior as a Death > Eater. > > On to point number two. Voldemort, while he may reward his > followers handsomely for their work, will also turn on them the > minute they are no longer useful to him. > > Yeah, so maybe Wormtail did get that silver hand. Do you really > think that Voldemort would hesitate for a second if he decided > there was something to be gained by AK-ing the rat? Or even if > he was bored wanted some fun? > > We've heard claims that certain people thought they would > become Voldemort's second in command when he took over. > But anyone who stopped to think would realize that second-in- > command means nothing when you're dealing with a guy like > Voldemort. He's totally power hungry, and there's not an ounce > of Hufflepuff in that man. One servant is as good as the next. > > Third, Snape is one smart cookie. I don't think anyone would > dispute that. > > Put it all together, and I think that Snape switched his allegiance > for entirely selfish motives. > > That ambitious drive in Snape's belly told him that he would > never get the power and recognition he wanted as long as he > was with Voldemort. In fact, working for an evil nutcase like that > is downright dangerous ? the guy's in a bad mood one day and > all those evil deeds were for nothing. > > No, much better to work for someone like Dumbledore, who > keeps his promises and passes out credit where credit is do. > Also, unlike Da V-miester, Dumbledore will actually die someday > and leave the top spot open. > > Yes, that's right. Severus betrayed his master for no other > reason than he was looking out for number one. He switched > sides solely for personal gain. He's ambitious to the core, and > knew he would never get the glory he deserves from that crazy > monster. > > Also, I think Snape probably has more faith in Dumbledore than > Voldemort (brilliant and evil as the man might be, he's totally > unstable and you really don't want to put your money on a ticking > time bomb like that). He's determined that Dumbledore will > eventually triumph, and he really wants to be on the winning side > when this messy war is all over. > Your last sentence is key. Perhaps something happened to convince Snape that the winning side is NOT with the V-Meister. Would Snape get more power as a Death Eater? Certainly. But he could have decided that it's better to be a Potions Master on the winning side than a Death Eater on the bad side -- dead or in Azkaban. My own theory is that Snape hates the situation he's found himself in. All things considered, he'd rather be a Death Eater, hanging out with former Slytherins. BUT... he had that pesky life debt thing to James, so he maybe tipped Dumbledore off that James was a target, never dreaming that Voldemort would go kablooey when he attacked the Potters. I also think he still despises Harry, but understands, however grudgingly, that Harry is the best chance they have. Where will Snape's ambitions take him? First, let us not downgrade the position of Headmaster at Hogwarts. It is THE Wizarding school in England and therefore is a very crucial position, molding the wizards and witches that go out in to the world. But I do agree, Snape probably has higher goals. My guess is that he wants to be the Top Auror, or head of the Magical equivalent to M.I.6 or the CIA. He'd be good at that. But he's not getting there without Dumbledore's wholehearted endorsement that Snape is a good guy, and maybe Dumbledore hasn't quite granted that yet. Let us give Snape credit for being more complex than much of the theories grant him. Darrin -- Maybe Snape got really drunk and woke up one day and said: "I did WHAT? I turned against Voldermort????" From naama_gat at hotmail.com Mon Jun 17 14:03:01 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 14:03:01 -0000 Subject: MAGIC DISHWASHER and UglyBaby!Voldemort (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39976 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "N Fry" wrote: > > There has been a lot of debate about this topic lately. I've noticed that both sides of the argument have avoided a little point that I've been a bit curious about. The end result of the MD theory is that our heroes need to get Voldemort into a bodily (aka killable) form. They can't exactly destroy an evil vapor. I can accept that. I've also noticed that the MD supporters focus on the post-potion version of Voldemort when discussing the desired mortal form. My question is: Why do they have to wait until he is in his > restored adult body? What about UglyBaby!Voldemort? I'm not a MAGIC DISHWASHER-er (or should it simply be MAGIC DISH WASHER? ) but I think I can answer for them: UglyBaby!Voldemort is not mortal. If his body is destroyed, he will simply revert to evil vapor again. Only after the resurrection - involving Harry's blood and flesh of servant (in life debt to Harry) - is Voldemort in killable form. Naama hoping that helps From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com Mon Jun 17 14:41:11 2002 From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 07:41:11 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Evil Anyone - Snake Duelling Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39977 >Debbie said: >"Snape's actions at the duelling club revealed to >Harry that he's a Parselmouth, but that was only information that he would >need *if* he chose to look for the Chamber of Secrets. In fact, I'm not at all convinced that Snape knew Harry was a Parselmouth." I personally agree about Snape not knowing about Harry being a Parselmouth -- ~Harry~ had only talked to a snake once so unless Snape was watching him at the zoo (highly unlikely) then he wouldn't know. The snake, IMO, was used by Snape because it is the emblem for Slytherin -- Snape was prepared to get rid of it on his own. ~JKR~ had ulterior motives for choosing a ~snake~ but none of the characters had any reason to suspect that Harry could talk to them and therefore no deeper reason for choosing that particular creature. Another reason for using a snake (Snape's POV) is that since a lot of people are afraid of snakes it makes them a good thing to conjure -- a lot of people would freak out lose the duel if a snake attacked them like that just like a lot of people would do the same if it had been a spider instead. Just my perspective on the whole issue. --- --Hana _______________________________________________________ WIN a first class trip to Hawaii. Live like the King of Rock and Roll on the big Island. Enter Now! http://r.lycos.com/r/sagel_mail/http://www.elvis.lycos.com/sweepstakes From lav at tut.by Mon Jun 17 13:59:59 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:59:59 +0300 Subject: Ottery St. Catchpole / Little Whinging Message-ID: <1325315871.20020617165959@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 39978 Greetings! I was re-reading 2nd book, when I had stumbled upon the description of Harry's journey from Dursley's home to the Burrow. It contained information that, as far as I knew, contradicted the location of Ottery St. Catchpole given in the HP Lexicon. According to HPL ( www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/ ), Ottery St Catchpole (and the Burrow) are located somewhere south of Bristol. At the same time Little Whinging is located south of London. Thus, direction from Little Whinging to the Burrow is *west*, only slightly to the south. Still, when I have read the book, it says smth along the lines of: "You take too far to the west, Fred" Fred turned the wheel LEFT. Interesting. The only way this can happen is if they are flying not in western, but in southern direction (any from SW to SE, but mostly south). There were already troubles with places named in the book that cannot be found on England map. I have a strong suspicion, that Ottery St. Catchpole is one of such places. In no way this village can be located in Wales - it has to be somewhere south from London, and very close to the Little Whinging. Note this theory has one additional argument: it took not much time at all to fly from Little Whinging to the Burrow - but Ford Anglia was not a racing sport car, and couldn't cover about 250 kilometers in less than an hour (Weasleys arrived to Little Whinging when it was already light, and arrived to the Burrow when everybody was just getting up). Of course maybe translators just garbled the words, but I find it unlikely. Still, maybe somebody will check this up. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, always happy to throw weird ideas into community. Monday, June 17, 2002, 16:50 local time (GMT+2:00) From goddess at yaoigoddess.com Mon Jun 17 14:31:52 2002 From: goddess at yaoigoddess.com (Rochelle) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:31:52 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Maturity of kids in Potterverse was Re: So, why did Snapeturn on References: Message-ID: <3D0DF2D8.6E250FB2@yaoigoddess.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39979 Ambir Adams wrote: > > Hmmm...I don't think Harry is less mature when it comes to girls. If I > recall Harry started crushing on Cho in PoA, he is 13 years old there. That > seems like a good age for boys to start noticing girls. Come to think of it, you're right. Can't remember which page, exactly, but I'm pretty sure that's the book were Harry first noted that Cho was pretty. > And just because > JKR doesnt go into everything about Harry maturing doesn't mean hes not > developing at the right speed and time, you have to assume that he is > changing. I being a girl would rather not read about everything that > happens to boy when they start to mature, just like boys would not want to > read about everything that happens to a girl when they start to mature. > Some things about growing up are better left unsaid and for good reason. *g* That WOULD be distracting, wouldn't it? At the risk of sounding crass (which has rarely stopped me before), it might get in the way of the intended storyline just a little bit if JKR gave us detailed desriptions of Harry Potter's first erotic dream and Hermione's first monthly. And as Laura pointed out elsewhere: > > However, I can see where these things aren't really a part of > the story JKR is trying to tell...The books aren't really supposed > to be about how Harry deals with puberty, now are they? Exactly. That's not what the books are about. Maybe sexuality isn't talked about much because, in the context of the series, such details are mostly irrelevant. *Rochelle. -- http://www.YaoiGoddess.com/ --Long Live the Slash. http://www.fanfiction.net/profile.php?userid=26023 --My fics on FFN. http://www.YaoiGoddess.com/light/ --Dying of the Light: A history of Severus Snape, Dark Arts prodigy turned Death Eater. ------------------ From skelkins at attbi.com Mon Jun 17 16:50:26 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:50:26 -0000 Subject: The Sorting of Neville Longbottom In-Reply-To: <00ab01c213c9$ea73b140$429f5651@tinyjyuaxzlq> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39980 Felicia wrote: > (I am always puzzled why Neville - a gifted herbology student - was > placed in Gryffindor. I know his Mum and Dad were attached but.....) I don't really see what the fact that he's good at herbology has to do with it. There is no evidence to suggest that ones area of academic expertise has anything to do with ones House affiliation. The current Herbology Professor is indeed the head of House Hufflepuff. That doesn't mean that the Herbology Professor has always been a member of that House, nor that the Head of House Hufflepuff has always been an herbology specialist, nor that there is any particular connection at all between herbology and Hufflepuff. Certainly the Hufflepuff students in Harry's year are not taking the top marks in herbology. Hermione is. There is a tendency, I think, for us to read the current alignment between Hogwarts' Heads of Houses and the subjects that they teach as indicative of some vast overarching schematic. It is tempting to do this in part, I think, because one or two of them really do make a great deal of intuitive sense. Slytherins are sneaky and Machievellian and dubious; so are poisons and sera; therefore Slytherin=Potions. Hufflepuffs are hard-working and diligent; they are the magical equivalent of the tillers of the soil; they are the "salt of the earth;" therefore Hufflepuff=Herbology. And so on. It doesn't really hold up too well in the long run, though, does it? Surely clever erudite Ravenclaw doesn't really match up all that well to Charms, which involves a marked physical component (wand motion) and is also the art used for duelling. I would think that it would be better aligned to Arithmancy, or perhaps even to History of Magic. And does Transfiguration really have anything at all to do with the Gryffindor values of courage and valour? Wouldn't Transfiguration actually align far better to House Slytherin, whose members believe in changing the rules of engagement to serve their own ends, and whose mascot is the snake, symbol of transformation? No. I don't think that even the current associations between the Houses themselves and the academic subjects taught by their Heads really hold up very well at all, once you start looking too closely at them. The Sorting has nothing to do with academic expertise. It has everything to do with values. But the question of why Neville wasn't sorted Hufflepuff seems to come up quite often on this list, and it's always been bit of a pet peeve of mine, so I hope that Felicia will forgive me if I use her original comment (which I do realize was parenthetical in the first place) as a kind of launching point to dive into that issue. ----- Why do people always think that Neville belongs in Hufflepuff? I truly have never understood this at all. I can understand why his placement in Gryffindor might give some people pause, but why on earth *Hufflepuff?* These are the traits that the Sorting Hat itself has identified as associated with House Hufflepuff in its songs at the beginning of PS/SS and GoF: -- just -- loyal -- patient -- true -- unafraid of toil -- hard workers In addition, we're told that the members of House Hufflepuff rarely achieve glory, and that they are widely considered to be rather a bunch of "duffers." Okay. Overall, the primary trait of the House seems to me to be *diligence.* Diligence is the only trait repeated in both of the Hat's songs. Furthermore, we have been told by Dumbledore that the Sorting is based on the Founders' own preferences in students, and the Sorting Hat's song in GoF, which explicitly states that it is describing the Founders' values, lists Hufflepuff's preferred type only as "hard workers." So. Is Neville a hard worker? Is he diligent? Is he "unafraid of toil?" Is this a trait that he seems to place a high value on, or to aspire to, or to try to emulate, or to cherish in others? I see absolutely no evidence of this. Neville does not seem to be particularly hard working. When Harry runs into him near the One- Eyed Witch while all of the other members of their class are off in Hosgsmeade, he has not only not yet finished his vampire essay; he all but asks Harry to let him copy off of his. In _GoF,_ we learn that Hermione has been giving him a great deal of help with his schoolwork. We know that he is a poor student and that he often needs to struggle with the material, but we don't actually see him spending a whole lot of time studying, do we? We often see Hermione deeply engrossed in her classwork while the other students are engaged in recreational activities in the Gryffindor common room. We are never told of Neville doing the same. If Neville really is diligent and hard working, then the text has never bothered to show it to us. If diligence and perseverance are things that he particularly values in other people, then the text has never bothered to show us that, either. I'm not saying that Neville is lazy, mind you, but diligence really doesn't seem to me to be either one of his notable traits or something that he values all that highly. So on to the secondary characteristics of the House, then. "Just." Is being just, or "fair," a particularly important value to Neville? I see no evidence for this one way or the other. He doesn't strike me as UNfair, by any means, but justice certainly doesn't seem to me to be one of his most highly cherished values. When targetted in the hallways by Draco Malfoy in the first book, for example, he chooses to suffer in silence rather than to object to this unchivalrous and rule-breaking behavior. He doesn't object when McGonagall accuses him of leaving his cheat-sheet of Gryffindor common room passwords lying around either, even though as it later turns out this was an unjust accusation. We never see him going out of his way to defend Harry any of the many times that Harry stands falsely accused of something, or to insist upon a due consideration of both sides of the argument when someone makes a sweeping generalization or an unfair statement. So there is no evidence that justice is something that Neville particularly values either. "Patient." Yes. That Neville is. He is *exceptionally* patient. He curls up to sleep on the floor of the corridor outside of the common room while waiting for someone to come along to let him in, rather than going out to seek help. He puts up with all manner of abuse from others with a certain degree of aplomb -- or at the very least, of resignation. Patience I will certainly grant him. "Loyal." Well. Now, *that's* an interesting question, isn't it? Is Neville loyal? He does tell Draco Malfoy that Harry fainted when confronted with the dementors at the beginning of _PoA,_ but we are given absolutely no clue as to how this exchange of information came about. It could have been an unthinking slip -- Neville *is* forgetful -- or it could have been something far less benign. Neville's true motivations are still very much a black box in canon. It is, however, not all that encouraging on the loyalty front, and neither is the fact that he does not speak a *word* during the confrontation on the train at the beginning of _GoF._ He is just in the middle of talking to Ron about the QWC -- Ron has just tipped the Krum figurine into his hand -- when Draco and his cronies show up. That's the last we hear from Neville. It's not even altogether clear whether he is present for the entirety of the conversation, or whether he slips silently away somewhere in the middle of the scene. One thing he certainly does *not* do, though, is to leap faithfully to Ron's defense when Draco starts mocking him. That just doesn't happen. Nor is Neville particularly loyal to his family. He tells the other students stories of his upbringing that place Bent Uncle Algie in a very poor light. He speaks "gloomily" about his Gran's insistence that he should be upholding the family honor, as if he himself doesn't think it a particularly worthwhile or purposeful goal. He does visit his parents over his holidays, true, but we don't even know if he would be doing that if he weren't taken there by his Gran. Again, I'm not saying that Neville is disloyal, but I really don't think that he exhibits extraordinary loyalty either. I wouldn't identify it as one of his striking characteristics, nor do I see evidence that it's a trait that he values all that highly. "True." Is "true" a synonym for "loyal," or does it mean "truthful?" I suspect the former, but since we've already covered loyalty, let's look at Neville's honesty, shall we? Is Neville honest? Hard to say. He's willing to 'fess up to McGonagall for losing his password list. He's willing to admit to the other Gryffindor students that he's allowed himself to get bullied in the hallways -- always a humiliating admission. He doesn't blurt out stuff about his parents to anyone, true, but then, no one's ever actually *asked* him about his parents, now, have they? At the same time, though, Neville certainly is *secretive,* isn't he? He doesn't tell Hermione what's really bothering him after Crouch/Moody's DADA class. He doesn't tell anyone about his parents. He has to be pressed before he'll admit to being bullied, or to losing his passwords (he did not, you will note, mention it to anyone when they *first* went missing). And, as I argued in message #36772, I think there is evidence to suggest that Neville has been deliberately leading others astray when it comes to the true extent of his magical capabilities. None of which precisely makes him dishonest, but it doesn't make him *forthright,* either, which is the type of honesty implied by the word "true." So why Hufflepuff? Why does everyone think that Neville ought to have been sorted into *Hufflepuff,* of all houses? If I were Helga Hufflepuff, I wouldn't have touched Neville with a ten-foot pole. She wanted stable, hard-working, straightforward, salt of the earth type students, didn't she? I don't think that she was terribly keen on the idea of trying to teach neurotic little weirdos with serious magical learning disabilities and far more emotional baggage than can fit into the overhead compartment. That just doesn't seem likely to me. In fact, if I were Helga, I think that I would have tried to foist Neville off on somebody else. *Anybody* else. Probably Godric. 'Cause you know, the thing about those warrior types with the great big swords is that they can never resist a *challenge.* They just love lost causes. And they're suckers for orphans and widows, too. And puppy dogs. And the lame and the halt. They're just big old *softies,* is what they are. Sentimental. And verrrrrry easy to manipulate. Which is pretty much exactly what I think happened inside that Sorting Hat. -- Elkins From joeblackish at yahoo.com Mon Jun 17 17:38:20 2002 From: joeblackish at yahoo.com (joeblackish) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:38:20 -0000 Subject: The Betrayer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39981 Grownups at y..., "naamagatus" wrote: > Naama: > > Beside his big screwup in PS, when did he show himself to be > untrustworthy? Hagrid, through his various character flaws, has caused serious problems in every one of the books so far. PS/SS: Tells the stranger in the pub how to get past Fluffy in exchange for a few drinks and a dragon's egg. CoS: Nearly gets Harry and Ron killed by sending them after a giant spider that Hagrid doesn't *think* will hurt them. PoA: The whole Buckbeak fiasco. He shouldn't have introduced such a dangerous creature in the first class. He should have noticed that Malfoy wasn't paying attention and should have been more in control of the situation. He has all the kids going up to play with a very dangerous creature at the same time. Each one of those children should be handling a hippogriff one at a time, with Hagrid right next to them and ready to stop any potential problems. And then he's the worst teacher ever for the rest of the year. The children learn absolutely nothing by feeding flobberworms lettuce. He deserved to be canned. GoF: He knows that Rita Skeeter isn't to be trusted, and he willingly speaks to her anyway (going to the Three Broomsticks together, I might add), and offers her information about himself and Harry that she exploits to everyone's detriment, all simply because she flatters him a little bit. Hagrid has repeatedly shown that he does not deserve to be trusted with anything important. He simply cannot be counted on to do anything right. I thought I was doing him a favor in my scenario by allowing him to redeem himself in death. Joe, who really can't stand Hagrid. From DMCourt11 at cs.com Mon Jun 17 17:39:51 2002 From: DMCourt11 at cs.com (bookraptor11) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:39:51 -0000 Subject: Evil Anyone - Snake Duelling In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39982 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Hana" wrote: > >Debbie said: > >"Snape's actions at the duelling club revealed to > >Harry that he's a Parselmouth, but that was only information that he would > >need *if* he chose to look for the Chamber of Secrets. In fact, I'm not at all convinced that Snape knew Harry was a Parselmouth." > > I personally agree about Snape not knowing about Harry being a Parselmouth -- ~Harry~ had only talked to a snake once so unless Snape was watching him at the zoo (highly unlikely) then he wouldn't know. At the end of COS, Dumbledore tells Harry "Unless I'm much mistaken, he [Voldemort]transferred some of his own powers to you the night he gave you that scar. Not something he intended to do, I'm sure..." I have a feeling that at least Dumbledore and Snape, (together or seperately) have been wondering just what powers were transferred to Harry that night; it might be crucial in the future fight against V. It would be like Snape to be looking out for circumstances to test Harry, and when the duel came up he seized on the chance to see if he was a parselmouth. This also explains the "shrewd and calculating look" he gives Harry afterwards. Donna From bard7696 at aol.com Mon Jun 17 17:16:22 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:16:22 -0000 Subject: So, why did Snape turn on Voldermort? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39983 Joe Black wrote: > > > > That ambitious drive in Snape's belly told him that he would > > never get the power and recognition he wanted as long as he > > was with Voldemort. In fact, working for an evil nutcase like that > > is downright dangerous ? the guy's in a bad mood one day and > > all those evil deeds were for nothing. > > > > No, much better to work for someone like Dumbledore, who > > keeps his promises and passes out credit where credit is do. > > Also, unlike Da V-miester, Dumbledore will actually die someday > > and leave the top spot open. > > > > Yes, that's right. Severus betrayed his master for no other > > reason than he was looking out for number one. He switched > > sides solely for personal gain. He's ambitious to the core, and > > knew he would never get the glory he deserves from that crazy > > monster. > > > And Naama responded: > It's a nice theory and would, in fact, be very convincing, except for > one thing: Dumbledore's complete trust in Snape. For some reason (one > of the Great HP Mysteries), Dumbledore is certain that Snape is loyal > to him and to the Light Side. > Dumbledore knows Snape to be truly on the Light Side, but if Snape > switched because of ambition, I don't see how Dumbledore can be so > sure of him. A person who switches sides for such a reason can just > as easily switch sides again, if the other side offers something > better. IOW, it isn't a change of heart, and I don't think that > Dumbledore would trust Snape if he wasn't sure that Snape had gone > through a change of heart. > > And I'm writing: :) On the other hand, once Snape made his choice, it is hard for him to turn back. Even if he made the choice to do so out of ambition, the fact is, he betrayed Voldemort, which is something that is going to be hard to come back from. V-Man himself said "The one I believe has left me forever. He will be killed, of course." So I'm not sure Snape COULD go back, even if his ambition dictated it. I think a closer answer than ambition is the fact that Snape correctly sniffed out which side is the winning side. It really could be that simple. Say you serve a master who fears one wizard above all. Say you see an opportunity to go serve that one wizard your boss fears, or perhaps that wizard, knowing more about your character than even you do, approaches you and asks you to. It's not a slam-dunk that you'd switch sides, but you'd have to at least think about it. The only real clue in the canon that I can see against the ambition/survival instinct theory is Dumbledore telling Harry "that is a matter between Snape and myself" when Harry asks why he is so sure about Snape. That could indicate that we're talking about a specific event that convinced D-Dore that Snape was indeed on the side of the good guys. Or it could be both. Snape figured out that he had a better chance of attaining power -- and staying alive and out of Azkaban -- if he switched sides. Dumbledore didn't buy it for a second at first, but Snape convinced him through some act. In all of this though, I still think there is room for Snape to be conflicted about Harry. I think he despises Harry, but knows that the best chance of defeating V-Mort once and for all -- and getting Snape clear of retribution -- is through Harry. Also, I still think Snape and James were friends in the beginning, and Snape still feels that life debt. Let's call this the: SWEET MARY, JESUS AND JOSEPH! Theory Severus Wants Evil Eradicated Totally, but Most Appropriate Result: Young Jerk Stops Undermining Severus' Ambition, Nearly Destroying James' Outstanding Sacrifice to Enable Powerful Harry. Yes, I know, it was Lily's sacrifice, but don't pester me with little details like that ;) Darrin - HELP! I'm acronyming and I can't stop! From TaliaDawn3 at aol.com Mon Jun 17 17:39:38 2002 From: TaliaDawn3 at aol.com (TaliaDawn3 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:39:38 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Evil Anyone - Snake Duelling Message-ID: <166.f4d4c4e.2a3f78da@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39984 In a message dated 6/17/02 9:45:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, crana at ntlworld.com writes: > It just seems wrong that someone like Dumbledore would actually be working > for Voldemort, or that Voldemort will eventually triumph: it seems at odds > with the Good vs Evil battle that is central to the series. Evil can't > triumph! That just doesn't happen! Good sort of *has* to win, albeit with > sacrifices, or there was no point in making it such a moral place to begin > with, if you're then going to tell people: "Nah, forget what I said about > being good, you loser". Actually, I think that it would make the series mean more if Evil won. It might just be me, but whenever I read a book (or series) and the good guys win, I very easily forget it. Quite frankly, I don't think anyone will ever "win", someone will just temporarily have more power. Of course, the only battle that we're really concerned with is against Lord Voldemort. If Evil won, it would make the books mean more (at least to me) and they would be more true to life. Good doesn't always defeat Evil. I think that it would teach a more important lesson if Voldemort defeated the Good - or if no one won at all. ~*~*~Talia Dawn~*~*~ (Who happens to be a die-hard Slytherin.) What's the Spanish word for caliente? Who's with the band? I'm not with the band? Do you know anyone with the band? I don't know anyone with the band. Is there a band here? I see you shiver, with antici.........................pation. Don't dream it, be it. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. No better way to celebrate a holy day than with demonstration of ignorance. If you can see the bandwagon, it's too late to get on. If you realized how powerful your thoughts are you would never think another negative thought. If you dwell on what you don't want, you'll get more of it. The only time you were ever at peace in your whole life was when you were dead. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From skelkins at attbi.com Mon Jun 17 17:55:33 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:55:33 -0000 Subject: Parental Snape and Non-Compliant Lupin (WAS: A case against Evil Lupin) In-Reply-To: <004a01c2159e$41982020$3c7c63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39985 Amanda wrote (of Snape's dialogue in Lupin's office, while waiting for Lupin to swill down his Wolfsbane potion in PoA): > I always sort of had the idea that Snape was continuing to speak > when not necessary--it is sort of awkward, isn't it? I thought he > was trying to do a foot-stomper for Harry ("Hell-LO! Are you > listening? This guy, he has to take a *potion,* he gets sick every > *month,* clue IN"), by calling attention to the potion indirectly. I like that, Amanda. I'd never thought of it that way before. I'd always read it as a foot-stomper as well, but one far more for Lupin's benefit than for Harry's. I gloss most of Snape's lines there to read: "Damn it, Lupin, would you *drink* that stuff already? Are you a grown man or aren't you? Do you think I don't have better things to do than to stand over you all day waiting for you to take your medicine?" There's a strange sort of irritable parent/recalcitrant child dynamic going on in that scene, to be sure. Lupin really does strike me as pulling the "All *right!* I'll *drink* it! But not while you're standing over me, okay? Just leave me alone, and I promise that I'll do it. Geez, don't you *trust* me?" behavior that I'm afraid that I do tend to associate with adolescents who are being Difficult. Poor Snape, meanwhile, is trapped in the parental role, a role in which he often finds himself trapped in canon, even though he is profoundly temperamentally unsuited for it. The flavor of the dynamic always left me with the impression that Dumbledore had given Snape express instructions to make certain that Lupin was really drinking his potions. I tend to agree with Pip that Lupin has a bit of a non-compliance problem, and I think that Dumbledore realized that -- or at the very least suspected it -- and so appointed poor Severus as the task-master when it came to Lupin's medication. This would also explain why Snape was bringing Lupin his potion in person on the night of Shrieking Shack. > Snape does act to protect Harry; he can't be happy to find Harry > there in the office of a werewolf. I sort of saw this as being > reluctant to leave, making forced conversation in an attempt to > keep an eye on things. I'm certain that he was not happy to find Harry sitting around chatting with Lupin in his office, especially at that time of the month, and especially since Lupin has the power to humiliate Snape by telling Harry embarrassing stories about his schooldays. > This was also my take on his backing out. I read his backing out to read: "I'm watching you, Lupin. Drink. Your. Potion." -- Elkins From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Jun 17 19:08:40 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 19:08:40 -0000 Subject: A case against Evil Lupin In-Reply-To: <1a3.3d46f4b.2a3efd48@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39986 Pippin: >> who still wants to know why JKR told us there was extra wolfsbane potion around if it isn't important. "I made an entire cauldronful," Snape continued. "If you need more." Ch. 8 PoA.<< Debbie: >> One thing Snape's comment tells me is that Snape is in control of the potion; he keeps it and doles it out to Lupin as needed. Lupin doesn't keep his own supply; he has to get it from Snape on a dose-by-dose basis. I think this is important to set up Snape's bringing the potion to Lupin's office on June 6.<<< That could have been established without telling us that there was extra potion available. We are dealing with a work of art here. It's not as though there's a video of everything that happens in the Potterverse, and all Rowling does to create her novels is mentally play it back and write everything down just as it happened. Even if that's an imaginary exercise that Rowling performs as her first step, what ends up on the page is what Rowling means to tell us. Every sentence serves a purpose, whether it's to entertain, inform, persuade or confuse. Now it could be that it's just a character note: "Snape is the kind of fellow who would make a huge batch of a difficult potion just because he can." Or maybe not. It's an odd place for an amusing character note, because we're supposed to see Snape's behavior in this scene as ominous, but it's a very good place for a clue. Debbie: >>The other think that struck me about the quote is the fact that it suggests that there's not a standard dose for the potion. Snape remarks that he made an entire cauldronful "if you need more." And Lupin responds that he should "probably take some again tomorrow." If it's so unclear how much potion Lupin needs to be harmless, could Lupin have forgotten to take his potion on June 6 because he thought he'd taken enough? Did he like Snape bringing him the potion like some kind of servant? <<< Again, it's an odd place for a character note, and one that goes against the impression of Lupin in this scene. What it does do is confuse Harry ( and the reader) so that when Snape says that Lupin hasn't taken his potion in the Shack, it's not obvious that an emergency is imminent. The reader isn't told that it's a full moon, and isn't sure if Lupin has to take his potion every day in order not to be dangerous. However, it doesn't give a reason for Snape and Lupin to be confused in the Shack. They must know that it's a full moon. They also ought to know what the minimum safe dose of potion is. Otherwise, no one could ever be sure that Lupin has had enough potion, and it wouldn't have been safe for him to stay in his office during his transformations. IMO, Rowling doesn't really establish that Lupin gets confused or forgetful under stress, not compared to Neville. Or Voldemort. (maybe *Voldemort's* been memory charmed?) Aside from the absent-minded Professor stereotype, all we have is Snape's comment about Lupin's lack of organization, and Lupin's statement that he's not much of a potion maker. That's clever. It inclines us to think that Lupin must be forgetful like Neville, without really showing us that he is. But Lupin doesn't seem so disorganized to me. His lessons are so well worked out. And then he remembers to pick up the Cloak. I would guess that forgetful!Lupin and non-compliant!Lupin are both red herrings, but for different sets of readers. >>Pippin continues: Which establishes that Snape makes more wolfsbane potion at a time than Lupin needs. We know that it is easy to break into Snape's office, and Lupin can also enter through the fireplace.So, if Lupin wanted to pretend that he hadn't taken his potion when he actually had, it wouldn't seem to be too difficult.<< Debbie: >>> I can see how Lupin could have broken into Snape's office, since he tells us a wizard could break his locking spells. We also know that Dobby was able to get into Snape's office and steal gillyweed. However, Snape seems to have an excellent knowledge of his inventory, so that he noticed the missing stores of boomslang skin and gillyweed. (GoF, ch. 25, p. 471 US) I also believe Snape knew exactly how much of the wolfsbane potion he had prepared and kept track of it, especially since he was keeping his eye on Lupin. So while Lupin could have stolen the potion, I think Snape would have noticed it missing (though maybe not until after the Shrieking Shack events). <<< That was part of my original theory. Snape did notice the missing potion later that night, and that led him to expose Lupin. It doesn't matter whether he told Dumbledore or not, because it would only have been his word against Lupin's that some potion was missing. Rowling has established that a case of missing property is not enough to authorize the use of veritaserum on a suspect. So regardless of what Snape and Dumbledore suspect, they have no evidence for an accusation. Debbie: >>As nobody else at Hogwarts besides Lupin had any use for the potion, Lupin would have been suspected of stealing it. And unless Snape did not tell Dumbledore, I can't imagine that Dumbledore would have trusted Lupin enough at the end of GoF to send Sirius to his place. So, I don't think Lupin stole the potion.<< Ah, but we don't know everything that Dumbledore has told Sirius, because Dumbledore and Sirius are in correspondence. (GoF ch. 30.) If Dumbledore sent Sirius to Lupin's it could be because they had agreed Lupin should be watched. Sirius wouldn't necessarily have to suspect Lupin himself to agree to that. Dumbledore's usual method is to keep those he suspects free to act but under surveillance until they have impaled themselves on their own swords, like Lockhart. Debbie: >>I also think Lupin's behavior when he transforms is not consistent with having taken the potion and exercising human control. Lupin starts snarling the moment he begins to transform, then rears up and starts snapping his jaws, which is more like the fully fledged monster than the harmless wolf. If he was in control of himself, it seems to me that he wouldn't begin to act vicious until he was ready to pounce upon his victims -- and I presume he would have begun with Sirius in order to catch him by surprise before he had a chance to transform and control him. << Lupin can't start with Sirius. Lupin is chained to Pettigrew and Ron. But if Lupin pretends to be a vicious werewolf, Sirius will transform and come to protect Ron, Peter will make a break for it and if Sirius doesn't kill him, Lupin can chase him back to Voldemort. As soon as Peter gets away, and not before, Lupin disengages from Sirius and flees into the forest. Then, I assume, he summons the Dementors. He doesn't need to be in human form to do this since the Dementors can sense his human mind. Everyone is so interested in the question of how the Dementors were driven away that no one asks how they were summoned in the first place. But they can be called: Snape says that he will do it in the Shack. Debbie: >>> And to answer one more point of Pippin's from an earlier post< Pippin: >> She explained why Voldemort's supporters would go after Pettigrew. She even had Pettigrew fake his death twice, so that Lupin could truthfully say: "Everyone thought Sirius had killed Peter. I believed it myself..until I saw the Map tonight," even if he had initially gone to Hogwarts because he'd learned that Peter was alive. <<< Debbie: If Lupin returned to Hogwarts because he learned that Peter was alive, what about Pettigrew's faking his death at Crookshanks' hand would have made Lupin believe Sirius had done it? Even if Lupin had seen Crookshanks with Padfoot, Sirius would only have been an accessory to the crime, and this statement would not have been truly accurate. <<< By that logic Dumbledore was lying when he said Voldemort killed Cedric. Lupin doesn't have to know exactly how Wormtail's death was accomplished in order to think that Sirius was responsible for it. He could have thought that Crookshanks was obeying Sirius, or that Crookshanks had been framed, which of course he was. All that Lupin has to know is that Sirius has a reason to want Pettigrew dead. Pippin who thinks that the ending of PoA is unresolved compared to the endings of the previous books, and therefore does not think JKR was obligated to unmask all her characters. As for the reader being too close to Lupin, who knows how we will feel about him by the end of Book 7? From pen at pensnest.co.uk Mon Jun 17 21:09:25 2002 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:09:25 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time-Turner In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39987 AmyZ wrote: >I was wondering about the missed Charms class too. But I still don't get >it. > >Think of it this way: Hermione does this routine every day. When she goes >to Muggle Studies, she is missing Divination. Then she turns over the TT, >goes back, and goes to Divination. I understand what Deb is saying about >the two Hermiones, but I don't understand why she couldn't use it to go to a >missed Charms class. > >Had she kept her cool and gone back and gone to Charms, Harry and Ron (at >least the ones in that time-thread) would remember her going to Charms. By >the same token, they remember her going to Divination every time, even >though she was in both Divination and Muggle Studies; she went to one >"first" and "then" the other, and no one in either class missed her--because >she was there. > >Before you say "but that day, she *wasn't* in Charms," let me ask: why >wasn't she? There's no difference between missing a class because you got >stressed out and accidentally went back and took a nap in your common room, >and missing a class because you went to your other class. In each case, you >use your TT at the end of the period you want to re-live, and re-live it. She couldn't be in Charms because she hadn't been in Charms... Let's say Hermione's 'normal' routine involved going to Charms and then taking a twist through time to go to, oh, Arithmancy at the same time*. That way, during the hour (say) 10 - 11, she would have been in Arithmancy and in Charms. If, one day, she went to Arithmancy first, but remembered just as she came out of the classroom that she hadn't done Charms first as usual, she could simply use the time turner and attend the Charms class. She would still have been in both classes, even if on this occasion it was FirstHermione in Arithmancy and SecondHermione in Charms. However... on this occasion, Hermione didn't remember to go to Charms, and so there was no Hermione in Charms. If she had remembered to go to Charms, she would have been in Charms... but she didn't, so she wasn't. She couldn't go back from a later point in time, because she would then have been altering the past - from a 10-11am in which there was no Hermione in Charms, to a 10-11am in which there was a Hermione in Charms. Hermione and Harry could return to rescue Buckbeak because - unbeknown to them - they had been there, sneaking around in the background and rescuing Buckbeak. But if they hadn't been there, they couldn't have gone there... Yeah, I know, it gives me a headache too. Pen * Hmm. Actually, Charms seems to be one of the compulsory classes which everyone takes, so I can't see any good reason why Hermione should get confused at this point - there shouldn't be an alternative class for her to attend. But never mind that. From lav at tut.by Mon Jun 17 20:39:19 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 23:39:19 +0300 Subject: HP Lexicon: Timeline, October 31, 1981 Message-ID: <7229280146.20020617233919@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 39988 Greetings! There's only a little time before I again disappear from the List, so I hurry to bring the following subject to public attention. The theory that follows I had published before (in early Spring or so), but it got no response at that time. What I am talking about is the so-called problem of time line for Minerva McGonagall for the October 31, 1981 (the day of Voldemort's attack on Potters). Until now HP Lexicon contains the following timeline for the events that unfold on Oct 31 - Nov 1 (supposed events are marked with "?"): OCTOBER, 31: Voldemort attacks Potters but is destroyed by Harry (?) Dumbledore knows about attack and sends Hagrid to Godric's Hollow. NOVEMBER 1 (early): Hagrid arrives to Godric's Hollow, finds Harry Hagrid meets Sirius and takes his motorbike (?) Hagrid meets McGonagall and tells her what happened McGonagall arrives to Privet Drive NOVEMBER 1 (late): Dumbledore arrives to Privet Drive Hagrid and Harry arrive to Privet Drive Given this timeline, a lot of questions indeed appear, and they are defined in the HP Lexicon quite correctly. However, I see no reason to put the meeting of Hagrid and McGonagall *after* his arrival to Godric's Hollow. Indeed, nothing in the canon makes us believe that Hagrid met McGonagall on November 1. If he did meet her after he visited Godric's Hollow, there is no way how she could know so little about the event. But if we place meeting of Hagrid and McGonagall right *before* his arrival to Godric's Hollow, everything is in order. Indeed, Dumbledore knew enough to give instructions to Hagrid (this we know for sure), and it is only in this short period of time between Dumbledore's communication with Hagrid and Hagrid's arrival to Godric's Hollow that Hagrid has *exactly* the same amount of information that McGonagall had when she arrived to Privet Drive. So, the corrected timeline should look as follows: OCTOBER 31: Voldemort attacks Potters, destroyed by Harry Dumbledore knows about attack, instructs Hagrid Hagrid meets McGonagall, tells her what he knows NOVEMBER 1: Hagrid arrives to Godric's Hollow McGonagall arrives to Privet Drive ... Unfortunately, this small error with timing of meeting of Hagrid and McGonagall had brought a really weird theory to life: that Hagrid met McGonagall on November 1, but without Harry with him and didn't tell her everything he knew (this is quite improbable giving Hagrid's nature). Yep, yep, I know, I'm killing mystery and the like, but I just don't like when mysteries are created out of nothing (my theory about Evil Harry Potter doesn't count ;). For more information, read Harry Potter's Lexicon: http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/timeline_potters2.html Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, always happy to throw weird ideas into community, wishing to know when OoF comes out of print, and still hoping for someone to make a theory of Wizarding economy system. Monday, June 17, 2002, 23:15 local time (GMT+2:00) From pen at pensnest.co.uk Mon Jun 17 21:24:19 2002 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:24:19 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39989 James wrote: >Ron WEASLEY. >Weasley is a bad name for a good guy. A weasel is not a nice (or >well regarded) animal. Why would JKR do this. I wouldn't mind if it >was a common name like (Dean) Thomas, or ethnic (Longbottom, Patel), >but Weasely isn't either of these things. It seems that the majority >of the names in the HP series inform you of the nature of the >character. I know this, you know this, there are websites dedicated >to this (excellent ones at that - and no I'm not saying this because >I contributed data to one of them). When I first read 'Ron Weasley' I thought, 'must be a villain, then', because it is exactly the sort of name that in an old-fashioned jolly-hockey-sticks school book would be given to The Nasty One. (Anyone remember my post equating Draco to Mabel or Veronica? Probably not. Never mind.) Pen (who could, once upon a time, row stroke side or bow side, but is now too old and fat for that sort of thing, sigh, although that said, the esteemed parental unit recently took to the river again fifty years (!!) after his house four originally rowed together [which was very funny, as the sadist in the boathouse gave them a shell]) PS I *think* JKR said somewhere, sometime, that she rather approves of weasels. This may help. From crana at ntlworld.com Mon Jun 17 19:15:11 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 20:15:11 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Evil Anyone References: <166.f4d4c4e.2a3f78da@aol.com> Message-ID: <002b01c21633$4f6111e0$7db068d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 39990 Talia wrote: "Actually, I think that it would make the series mean more if Evil won. It might just be me, but whenever I read a book (or series) and the good guys win, I very easily forget it. Quite frankly, I don't think anyone will ever "win", someone will just temporarily have more power. Of course, the only battle that we're really concerned with is against Lord Voldemort. If Evil won, it would make the books mean more (at least to me) and they would be more true to life. Good doesn't always defeat Evil. I think that it would teach a more important lesson if Voldemort defeated the Good - or if no one won at all." Interesting point, but I am not too sure. From what is building up so far, it *seems* that we are building up to either Voldemort-is-vanquished or Voldemort-triumphs. I can't see it being sort of wishy-washy: do you think it would be like a Quidditch match? "Now Voldemort is in possession - and no, Dumbledore gets the Quaffle" etc? Eventually, someone has to get the golden snitch. Lord Voldemort, in the books, personifies "Evil", (and what's particularly interesting is the way it affects different people). So I do see it, if "the only battle that we're really concerned with is against Lord Voldemort", as a battle between good and evil. Wouldn't it be sort of pointless is Voldemort ended up winning? After having all this in the first books showing the struggle between what is right and what is wrong, wouldn't it be a bit strange if that all came to nothing? Anyway, Voldemort is a loser of a Dark Lord! He's pathetic! He *has* to lose! Rosie :) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From manda at qx.net Tue Jun 18 00:35:53 2002 From: manda at qx.net (Amanda Pressnell) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:35:53 -0700 Subject: Lethal Harry Message-ID: <3D0E1DF9.16924.34F884@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 39991 Grey Wolf wrote: > Harry has styablished life-debt to both Peter AND Sirius. That reminds me.. Was Harry actually capable of killing Sirius at that time? He hadn't been introduced to Avada Kedavra yet. I guess he could have used Wingardium Leviosa to hit him over the head with something heavy or set fire to Sirius' robes, but how much damage could he have really done? Manda finally coming up with something intelligent enough to post :-) -- http://www.MandaMia.com From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Mon Jun 17 21:49:56 2002 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 21:49:56 -0000 Subject: Names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39992 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Pen Robinson wrote: > James wrote: > > >Ron WEASLEY. > > >Weasley is a bad name for a good guy. A weasel is not a nice (or > >well regarded) animal. Why would JKR do this. I wouldn't mind if it > >was a common name like (Dean) Thomas, or ethnic (Longbottom, Patel), > >but Weasely isn't either of these things. It seems that the majority > >of the names in the HP series inform you of the nature of the > >character. I know this, you know this, there are websites dedicated > >to this (excellent ones at that - and no I'm not saying this because > >I contributed data to one of them). > > When I first read 'Ron Weasley' I thought, 'must be a villain, then', > because it is exactly the sort of name that in an old-fashioned > jolly-hockey-sticks school book would be given to The Nasty One. (Anyone > remember my post equating Draco to Mabel or Veronica? Probably not. Never > mind.) > PS I *think* JKR said somewhere, sometime, that she rather approves of > weasels. This may help. I remember back a couple of weeks ago, someone brought this up. Maybe it was longer, I'm not sure. Someone looked up the "weasel" and shared some interesting info on the animal, something along the lines of "it's a small animal, but it can pack quite a punch." Does anyone remember that post? That got me thinking that the Weasleys may seem a nice, regular family, but back them into a corner and they will fight and fight hard! Doesn't that sound like what they might do when backed into a corner with Voldemort? I don't think it has to do with being "weasle-ly", I think it has to do with how the animal acts under pressure. Anyway, if someone can remember what post that was, that might help. Just my two cents! Alora From crana at ntlworld.com Mon Jun 17 21:50:35 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:50:35 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Names - and Percy, Crabbe and Goyle References: Message-ID: <001101c21649$03456b60$d53068d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 39993 James wrote: >Ron WEASLEY. >Weasley is a bad name for a good guy. A weasel is not a nice (or >well regarded) animal. Why would JKR do this. I wouldn't mind if it >was a common name like (Dean) Thomas, or ethnic (Longbottom, Patel), >but Weasely isn't either of these things. It seems that the majority >of the names in the HP series inform you of the nature of the >character. I know this, you know this, there are websites dedicated >to this (excellent ones at that - and no I'm not saying this because >I contributed data to one of them). Do weasles have large families? I think they are a sort of browny-red colour - like the Weasley hair? It sounds like "measley": reflecting their poverty? It's a pretty down-to-earth sounding name, for one thing, whereas "Malfoy" for example, sounds very pretentious and sneering already. On a side note.. why are Crabbe and Goyle in Slytherin? They seem too dumb to have the cunning, cleverness and ambition that is meant to be a trait of Slytherins.. just a plot device? Or are they just ambitious in a more limited sense, fitting their limited intellectual horizons...hmm. And Percy. Is he just in Gryffindor so he appear in funny scenes with the rest of the Weasleys? Or does he have hidden courage we don't know about? He doesn't seem a Gryffindor type so far. I wonder to what extent the Hogwarts students socialise. For example, Parvatti and her twin Padma are in different houses; I wonder if they ever see each other? Would it be acceptable to invite people from other houses over to your common room? As far as I can remember, the only inter-house visits in canon are when Ron and Harry sneak into Slytherin's common room in CoS, and that was hardly by invitation. Maybe this isn't really important.. it is just a thought... Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From huntleyl at mssm.org Mon Jun 17 22:09:15 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 18:09:15 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Names - and Percy, Crabbe and Goyle References: <001101c21649$03456b60$d53068d5@xxx> Message-ID: <004f01c2164b$ba2154a0$e1ccedd1@Huntley> No: HPFGUIDX 39994 Rosie said: >On a side note.. why are Crabbe and Goyle in Slytherin? They >seem too dumb to have the cunning, cleverness and ambition >that is meant to be a trait of Slytherins.. just a plot >device? Or are they just ambitious in a more limited sense, >fitting their limited intellectual horizons...hmm. >And Percy. Is he just in Gryffindor so he appear in funny >scenes with the rest of the Weasleys? Or does he have hidden >courage we don't know about? He doesn't seem a Gryffindor >type so far. Whenever I see a character like Percy (or Neville) who seems to be "in the wrong house" for some reason or another, I tend to see it as a red flag or sorts -- indicating that there is more to the character than we are being led to believe... In both Percy and Neville's cases, I think that their outward, obvious traits (ambitiousness and umm.. non-braveness, respectively) will give way to strong Gryfinndor bravery at some point in the plotline -- surprising the socks off Harry and other cast members in the process. This is has already been illustrated when Neville stands up to both Malfoy and the Trio -- that *does* take extreme bravery, as Dumbledore notes. And we are learning that he is also brave in the tough, stiff-upper lip way that JKR is so fond of -- he handles the pain of his parent's fate alone. As for Percy...looking at the comments Ron makes about Percy betraying his family to further himself, I find myself thinking that Percy is most likely going to surprise Ron one of these days...In my experience, when a neutral or good character isn't given credit for having a certain trait...that usually means that they have that trait in spades and just haven't shown it yet. I'm not sure, however, that I feel this way about Crabbe and Goyle -- or, that is, I see no evidence that would lead me to assume that they *aren't* ambitious...not cunning, sure....but ambitious and willing to use any means to achieve an end? You bet your panties. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Mon Jun 17 22:36:40 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 23:36:40 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Betrayer? References: Message-ID: <017101c2164f$79d317e0$cf8501d5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 39995 "joeblackish" wrote: > PoA: The whole Buckbeak fiasco. He shouldn't have introduced > such a dangerous creature in the first class. He should have > noticed that Malfoy wasn't paying attention and should have been > more in control of the situation. He has all the kids going up to > play with a very dangerous creature at the same time. Each one > of those children should be handling a hippogriff one at a time, > with Hagrid right next to them and ready to stop any potential > problems. And then he's the worst teacher ever for the rest of the > year. The children learn absolutely nothing by feeding > flobberworms lettuce. He deserved to be canned. And the worst of all - he failed Buckbeak spectacularly. Hermione invested so much time and effort, and Hagrid could not get his emotions in check for 30 minutes or how long his defence speech was supposed to take?! I so wanted to kick him at this point. It was very easy to blame the committee afterwards, like he gave them any chance to decide in Buckbeak's favour. Irene From suzchiles at pobox.com Mon Jun 17 23:02:00 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 16:02:00 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39996 > -----Original Message----- > From: Pen Robinson > When I first read 'Ron Weasley' I thought, 'must be a villain You might want to read this web page about weasels: http://www.uksafari.com/weasels.htm Be sure to scroll through to the end to find the best part. This web page has some interesting information about where weasels make their homes: http://mbgnet.mobot.org/sets/taiga/animals/weasel.htm Zo From huntleyl at mssm.org Mon Jun 17 23:26:54 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 19:26:54 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Names and a bit of TBAY References: Message-ID: <001201c21656$78761bc0$23c3edd1@Huntley> No: HPFGUIDX 39997 Zoe advised: > You might want to read this web page about weasels: > http://www.uksafari.com/weasels.htm > Be sure to scroll through to the end to find the best part. The best part was this: "For hundreds of years weasels were thought to possess magical powers! In the Middle ages it was believed that weasels could bring their dead young back to life. It was also thought that they could hypnotize their prey by dancing in front of it!" *has images of Ron dancing around naked to distract Voldemort while Harry sneaks up behind him* Mwhahah. As for the dead young part...I wonder what that means in the context of the "dead Weasley sibling" theory..hmmm. OR! In the context of the Stoned!Harry theory...because, you know, Mrs. Weasley has practically adopted Harry...what if the Weasleys turn out to help Harry resurrect himself??!! MORE images of resurrection surrounding Harry!! Will they ever stop?? I think not!! I wonder if this could be considered another can(n)on?? hmmm... laura From suzchiles at pobox.com Tue Jun 18 00:14:11 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:14:11 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Names and a bit of TBAY In-Reply-To: <001201c21656$78761bc0$23c3edd1@Huntley> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39998 Laura pondered ... > > The best part was this: > "For hundreds of years weasels were thought to possess magical powers! In > the Middle ages it was believed that weasels could bring their dead young > back to life. It was also thought that they could hypnotize their prey by > dancing in front of it!" > As for the dead young part...I wonder what that means in the > context of the > "dead Weasley sibling" theory..hmmm. > > OR! In the context of the Stoned!Harry theory...because, you know, Mrs. > Weasley has practically adopted Harry...what if the Weasleys turn out to > help Harry resurrect himself??!! MORE images of resurrection surrounding > Harry!! Will they ever stop?? I think not!! No, I think it will have to do with Mrs. Weasley and either Ron or Ginny. Zoe, weasel researcher From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com Tue Jun 18 00:40:14 2002 From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 17:40:14 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Names Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39999 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Pen Robinson >> When I first read 'Ron Weasley' I thought, 'must be a villain >Zo wrote >You might want to read this web page about weasels: > >http://www.uksafari.com/weasels.htm > >Be sure to scroll through to the end to find the best part. It was mentioned earlier, but in message 38383 Eloise said: >>'The weasel? Yes the weasel was also used for an interesting reason. Since it could pack a punch and win combats with much bigger animals than itself, it was perfect for the Christians who, no matter how weak in themselves, can still triumph over Satan, the most terrifying monster of hell.'<< The variety of these symbolic meanings for the weasel show that JKR put a lot of thought into the name and there are a lot of postitive connotations. An interesting thing to consider is that maybe JKR ~wanted~ people to get the wrong impression of the Weasleys. Ron, at first glance, doesn't seem to be very remarkable except for his temper. Hermione is smart, Harry is The Boy Who Lived, but Ron is just average. I think that there is something more to Ron and, like his name, there are hidden parts to his personality that haven't come to light yet. It is also interesting that Ronald is the Scottish form of Reginald which is an English name meaning "king's advisor" Harold is Scandinavian for "army ruler" (Name definitions from "The Very Best Baby Name Book in the whole wide world" by Bruce Lansky.) Just some things to think about. --- --Hana > > > >________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/ > > > _________________________________________ Communicate with others using Lycos Mail for FREE! http://mail.lycos.com/ From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com Tue Jun 18 01:13:41 2002 From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 18:13:41 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Sorting of Neville Longbottom Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40000 Elkins said: >>In fact, if I were Helga, I think that I would have tried to foist Neville off on somebody else. *Anybody* else. Probably Godric. 'Cause you know, the thing about those warrior types with the great big swords is that they can never resist a *challenge.* They just love lost causes. And they're suckers for orphans and widows, too. And puppy dogs. And the lame and the halt. They're just big old *softies,* is what they are. Sentimental. And verrrrrry easy to manipulate. Which is pretty much exactly what I think happened inside that Sorting Hat.<< I agree with the fact that Neville doesn't really fit in Hufflepuff, that he doesn't, in fact, seem to fit into ~any~ of the houses. I'm not sure, however, that he's only in Gryffindor because they're softies at heart. That would play a role, definitely, after all, what other house would stick up for him and take care of him despite his weaknesses? I think though, that there must be some secondary or undeveloped traits in Neville that helped the Sorting Hat choose Gryffindor. The Gryffindor traits from PS/SS and GOF: brave at heart daring nerve chivalry bold (and intelligent since Godric made the Sorting Hat) He ~has~ shown courage in helping to fight Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle in PS/SS, as well as when he stands up to the Trio so bravery is there, deciding to fight might be considered daring (for him) and show some nerve since he's not really the picture of fighting strength. Chivalry? I'm not really sure. He wants to help protect his house, but that's not necessarly the same thing. So, Neville appears to have some of these traits, but they need a lot of nurturing to develop. I think that Neville's main problem (assuming that there is no memory charm messing with his mind etc) is a supreme lack of confidence. He, like Ron, is expected to live up to the "great examples" in his family, but unlike Ron, Neville's role models are insane now and it would be rather hard to follow their example when he's never ~seen~ them set it. It would be like living up to the memory of a dead hero -- impossible since time tends to exaggerate positive traits in the memory. The fact that few, if any teachers praise him or support him (I assume Sprout does but Snape terrorizes him and McGonagall has no patience and snaps at him) probably contributes to his low confidence. No one really takes him seriously or really encourages him to become a better person. They tell him what to do and criticize him when he screws up but he seems to get very little praise. In a positive environment I think that Neville ~could~ develop into a stronger person (look how much Moody/Crouch's words of praise did for him) and actually be worthy of the Gryffindor name if only someone realized it and decided to help guide him towards it. --- --Hana _________________________________________ Communicate with others using Lycos Mail for FREE! http://mail.lycos.com/ From ironysquared at aol.com Mon Jun 17 22:55:10 2002 From: ironysquared at aol.com (nightlysparks) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 22:55:10 -0000 Subject: Symbols next to Characters' Names (HP&Me) - Meanings? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40001 I don't know if this has already been brought up, but I was reading the FAQs and it seemed like the symbols in JKRs journal were under debate as to what they really are. I copied down all of them while watching (faithful-obsessive fan that I am) and was looking for patterns - I came to a conclusion, a few actually: Obviously, the name is first. Then there is a coloured in square, or an open circle. I think the dark square is if the character is male (except, oddly enough, in the case of Neville Longbottom), thus making the circle mean the character is female. After that, there are symbols of stars, one plain, one in a circle, and an "N" in a square. I think simply the star means 1/2 blood (Seamus has the star with a circle, but the circle is crossed out, making him half blood, as he says), the star with the circle around it is pure-blood, and the N with a square around it is muggle born (eg. Hermione) After that, the R,H, S, or G. Quite obviously, Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff, Slytherin, or Gryffindor, with the Gryffindors circled. If anyone else has other ideas, I'd like to hear them as well, but this is what I came up with. "nightlysparks" From ntg85 at prodigy.net Tue Jun 18 01:33:13 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 01:33:13 -0000 Subject: New acronym expressing my views In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40002 Darrin_Burnett (who is not, in any way, shape, or fom, named David): > I believe the amount of hatred Snape has shown toward Harry COMBINED > with the protective instinct he shows are two conflicting emotions > and they are resolved by James and Snape being friends at one point. I do agree with the reasoning behind your post; I recently had a friend stab me in the back, and I hate her guts for it, but at the same time, I can't stand the idea of something happening to her. Heck, I still have her copy of GoF (and if you want it, Mei Gorbachik, you can come apologize to my face). > Further, I believe that Snape believes, however grudgingly, that > Harry is the best hope for defeating Voldemort. If there was any > other option, he would take it and try to get Potter expelled, but > there isn't. Unfortunately, you just gave the alterative to your theory: Snape thinks Harry is the only one who can defeat Voldemort, and so can't get him expelled, but will give him as much hell as possible. Of course, this is assuming Snape is not still a DE (and if he were, why would he show Dumbledore his mark? Best job of bluffing I've ever seen!) > From Darrin Burnett: > > Don't Anger Riled Readers with Incorrect Name Because Understanding > Readers' Names Exudes Terrific Talent Are you ever gonna let me forget that? The Random Monkey, cuyo lastima es que no tiene un nariz. From bard7696 at aol.com Tue Jun 18 01:52:27 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 01:52:27 -0000 Subject: New acronym expressing my views In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40003 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "random_monkey0_0" wrote: > Darrin_Burnett (who is not, in any way, shape, or fom, named David): > > I believe the amount of hatred Snape has shown toward Harry COMBINED > > with the protective instinct he shows are two conflicting emotions > > and they are resolved by James and Snape being friends at one point. My main mammal Random Monkey said: > I do agree with the reasoning behind your post; I recently had a > friend stab me in the back, and I hate her guts for it, but at the > same time, I can't stand the idea of something happening to her. Heck, > I still have her copy of GoF (and if you want it, Mei Gorbachik, you > can come apologize to my face). > > > Further, I believe that Snape believes, however grudgingly, that > > Harry is the best hope for defeating Voldemort. If there was any > > other option, he would take it and try to get Potter expelled, but > > there isn't. > > Unfortunately, you just gave the alterative to your theory: Snape > thinks Harry is the only one who can defeat Voldemort, and so can't > get him expelled, but will give him as much hell as possible. Of > course, this is assuming Snape is not still a DE (and if he were, why > would he show Dumbledore his mark? Best job of bluffing I've ever > seen!) > I don't see Snape's views as being contradictory here. Were Voldemort not lurking about, I say Snape tries to get Harry expelled just so he doesn't have to deal with James' offspring all the time. (Or more likely, if Voldemort isn't around, Snape is teaching at Durmstrang or doing something else besides hanging around with snot- nosed brats.) All of this hinges on Snape despising Harry, and by extension Ron and Hermione. I think he hates Harry, but knows the world needs him. Add to this his life debt to James... Ay, Ay... I bet Snape just wishes all the Potters would just leave him alone once and for all. But, so long as Harry is around, Snape has to look out for him, but nothing says he has to make Harry's life easy, he just has to save it. :) OF COURSE...another twist... Think back to SS/PS. How do you think Dumbledore would react if he found out -- and he would have found out -- that Snape figured out what Quirrell was up to and still let Harry go tumbling off that broom at the Quidditch match anyway? Snape might have been able to bluff his way out of it, but it really was in his best interest to save Harry. > > > From Darrin Burnett: > > > > Don't Anger Riled Readers with Incorrect Name Because Understanding > > Readers' Names Exudes Terrific Talent > > Are you ever gonna let me forget that? RANDOM MONKEY Relinquishing Anger Neatly Demonstrates Overwhelming Maturity. May Our New Kinship Endure Years! Darrin - Ok, I really dig the term "main mammal" From bard7696 at aol.com Tue Jun 18 01:40:36 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 01:40:36 -0000 Subject: The Sorting of Neville Longbottom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40004 > Elkins said: > > >>In fact, if I were Helga, I think that I would have tried to foist > Neville off on somebody else. *Anybody* else. Probably > Godric. 'Cause you know, the thing about those warrior types with the great big swords is that they can never resist a *challenge.* They just love lost causes. And they're suckers for orphans and widows, too. And puppy dogs. And the lame and the halt. They're just big old *softies,* is what they are. Sentimental. And verrrrrry easy to manipulate. > > Which is pretty much exactly what I think happened inside that > Sorting Hat.<< > And Hana wrote: > I agree with the fact that Neville doesn't really fit in Hufflepuff, that he doesn't, in fact, seem to fit into ~any~ of the houses. > > I'm not sure, however, that he's only in Gryffindor because they're softies at heart. That would play a role, definitely, after all, what other house would stick up for him and take care of him despite his weaknesses? I think though, that there must be some secondary or undeveloped traits in Neville that helped the Sorting Hat choose Gryffindor. > > The Gryffindor traits from PS/SS and GOF: > > brave at heart > daring > nerve > chivalry > bold > (and intelligent since Godric made the Sorting Hat) > > He ~has~ shown courage in helping to fight Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle in PS/SS, as well as when he stands up to the Trio so bravery is there, deciding to fight might be considered daring (for him) and show some nerve since he's not really the picture of fighting strength. > > Chivalry? I'm not really sure. He wants to help protect his house, but that's not necessarly the same thing. > > So, Neville appears to have some of these traits, but they need a lot of nurturing to develop. And I'm writing: There are a few Neville moments we are forgetting in this discussion. Brave and bold? Neville actually asked Hermione to the Yule Ball AND has scored a date with Ginny before Harry and Ron even approached a girl. Harry basically lucked out with the last girl on his list and was able to get her to bring his sister along for Ron. Neville has learned the first rule of dating: They won't say no if you don't ask... but dang it, they won't say yes either. Heck, there are people three times his age that don't have that kind of courage. Nurturing to develop? We've got three cited examples of canon (and a fourth implied if you count what is probably incredible positive reinforcement from Sprout) of professors going out of their way to help Neville. Lupin: Pointedly chooses Neville to tackle the boggart first, AFTER Snape warns him. Moody/Crouch: Takes Neville aside and builds his confidence up. (Crouch has ulterior motives to be sure -- he wanted Neville to have the solution to the second task -- BUT from Neville's point of view, it's a teacher building him up.) And of course, Dumbledore himself: D-Dore knew he just needed to give Gryffindor 170 points to beat Slytherin for the House Cup is SS/PS. He could have divided it up any way and in any order possible. He chose to have Neville put Gryffindor over the top. Neville is being groomed for something. By the time this series is over, the names of people the wizards - and Muggles -- will have to thank for their continued existence will include Neville Longbottom. Even people who think Snape is some dark avenging hero can find comfort in this notion. He's the classic bad cop, pushing Neville to achieve great things, which other professors will praise him for. Neville belongs exactly where he is. The boy took on two boys twice his size. The boy risked his friendship with Hermione, Ron and Harry -- and as it turns out, his safety -- because it was best for the house. The boy stood up and said: "I lost the passwords," when he thought (he was wrong, of course) that he was responsible for endangering the lives of his fellow students. That's Godric's kind of kid if I ever saw one. Helga Hufflepuff pawned Neville off on Godric? Stupid chick doesn't know what she's missing out on. ACRONYM: HOPE SHE'S ILL WITH REGRET Helga's Opportunity Passed and Everyone Says Harry's Entourage Shouldn't Include Longbottom Loser, but Wretched Incompetent Tot Holds Resounding and Everlasting Greatness Regarding Evil's Tumble. Darrin -- Full disclosure: I came late to the HP books and I was able to read all four for the first time right in a row. The scene where Dumbledore gives Neville the winning 10 points is where I said: "I see now what the hype was about." From pegoheart144 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 18 01:23:27 2002 From: pegoheart144 at yahoo.com (pegoheart144) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 01:23:27 -0000 Subject: Seven Key Things Harry Needs to Defeat Voldemort Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40005 In my opinion, Harry already has the power to defeat Voldemort. At the midway point in the series, he still doesn't have the training to tap into and use all of his powers. It seems to me that Harry is acquiring all the skills to counter anything that Voldemort sends at him. This stems from the power that was transferred to Harry when Voldemort's was shattered. There are seven key things that Harry will need to defeat Voldemort. Harry has picked up one in each of the first four books. 1. Sorcerer's Stone ? Harry's friendship with Ron and Hermione 2. Chamber of Secrets ?He uses his skill as a Parceltongue to find and kill the Basilisk 3. Prizoner of Azkaban ? He learns to use the Patronus Charm 4. Goblet of Fire ? He learns to throw off the Imperius Curse These are the things he still needs. I'm not sure what order these will be in. 5. Harry needs to learn to use the Dreamlink to anticipate Voldemort's moves 6. He needs to develop a defense against the Cruciatus Curse ? This will be new ? There isn't one 7. He's going to have to learn to kill. He will acquire other skills along the way (I'm convinced he's going to learn to apparate) but these seven will be needed for that final confrontation. Opinions? Suggestions? "pegoheart144" From chetah27 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 18 05:14:48 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 05:14:48 -0000 Subject: Voldie's New&Improved POWER BOOSTS- For inempt dark wizards (Re:Talentless DE's) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40006 Alright...so, he got a Power Boost from Voldie. Yes, that makes good sense. I was afraid for a moment while I read your post that Young Crouch's knowledge seemed a bit FLINT-y...I mean, he only escaped his father on the night of the Quidditch World Cup, correct? That didn't leave him that much time to kidnap Moody, regain his strength, learn the things he needs to know to play a convincing Alabastor Moody and a very knowledgeable DA teacher- plus contact Voldie to set up that ever-so-intricate Triwizard Portkey Cup plot. An Elkins Quote: > There is some suggestion in the books that either Voldemort himself > or allegiance to Dark forces in general might indeed have the > ability > to imbue wizards with magical powers previously beyond their > capabilities. Soo...becoming a DE means a nice boost in some of your magicalness- that's what you're saying, correct? Well, what an intersting light this puts Ex-Death Eater Snape in. Dear Potions-Master Snape...what did he do to get that title, eh? (this is merely amusing speculation...as is what follows) I like your agruements on Pettigrew's talent. He's always described as a poor wizard, yet he has definately shown himself as being a formidable opponent. This could be that the Power Surge theory stands true..or it could be because of Pettigrew's own nature. I believe each of the times he shows some great magical powers is when he is extremely threatened/stress/trying to save his own skin. Young wizards who have no training show their magic by magically defending themselves when presented in danger/extreme stress- even as a wizard in training, Harry resorts back to this when his emotions run high in the Dursley' kitchen. When Sirius corners Peter(which I believe it says Sirius does in the book- you can speculate Pettigrew planned this, also, I supose), he has his wand concealed for obvious reasons- they are on a Muggle street, after all; and also he would want to keep the fact that he is *armed* a secret from Sirius until he couldn't help it(maybe hoping Sirius wouldn't attack him if he didn't seem armed/going for a surprise attack as a last resort). So Sirius *corners* the terrified man...and as he is, as I undoubtebly believe Sirius did do, threatened by the wizard cornering him he just sort of goes BOOM with his wand. He hits the deck and, seizing the moment, goes rat (Ha, you can't argue that the boom would have killed him if he hadn't perfectly timed the Animagus transformation...Sirius didn't die, who was standing close enough to Peter to call it "cornering" him.). The Shrieking Shack- same thing. He was being threatened with death/life in Azkaban...that would probably terrify some magic into him. And also, this could be why Voldemort is always torturing/berating/yelling at Wormtail- he's trying to terrify some magic into the man, and at the same time being all I'm-An-Evil- Overlord-Who-Doesn't-Give-A-Damn-About-Anyone's-Feelings. I'm not trying to shoot down this Power Boost stuff(it actually fits pretty well in the series)...just tyring to make sure it can stand on two legs. It does make sense that Voldie would offer people a share in his power- not just "IF I take over the world, and IF you live through it, you shall have power! Mwahaha!" But, where they do get some down payment on selling themselves to the Dark Side. As for the DE's little game of moving target with Harry in the graveyard: Hmm, very interesting to look at it from Elkin's point of view. It does fit the DE's character. But at the same time, with Big Bad, Recently Resurrected Voldie right there yelling at them, I don't know if they would take the chance to miss on purpose... I mean, even if one did stop and think "Hey, I don't know if I want to go shooting at Harry 'I can block a fully loaded AK!' Potter", if they take one look around and see their fellow minions shooting at the kid they'll probably decide it would be pretty stupid of themselves to be missing on purpose- what if someone notices? Particuarly, what if Voldemort notices and decides to blast them with an AK....he's already pretty pissed off at this moment, I'd say. =P ~Aldrea(I believe that's enough random specualtion in one post...) From catlady at wicca.net Tue Jun 18 06:07:23 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 06:07:23 -0000 Subject: Young Snape / Riddle and Lucius / the Map / Weasels / Ugly Baby Voldie Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40007 Darrin wrote: << Again, though, we have to look at the era. A kid interested in Dark Arts during Voldemort's reign will be looked at with suspicion and fear. Again, it would be similar to a Nazi sympathizer in occupied France. Or a Taliban sympathizer in America today. >> First detail is, if the Voldemort Reign of Terror (RoT or "the Bad Years") started in 1970 (Book 1 Chapter 1, Voldemort is dis-embodied, is 1981 and Dumbledore says "these eleven years" = since 1970), and our guys were Class of '76 (having been born in 1957-58, according to a timeline that I worked out while waiting for GoF, while Lexicon Steve was working on his timeline at the same time), then the Bad Years hadn't started yet when Severus was a first year who knew more curses than most seventh years. Second detail is, distrusting all people who are knowledgeable about Dark Arts is not a good way to get good DADA teachers and good Aurors. Joe Blackish wrote: << [Lucius recommending to re--embodied young Diary!Tom] "You need to go reunite with your older, more powerful, and currently vapor self. >> I think Young Tom, having just eat Ginny or whomever, would recognize that Lucius was advising him to commit suicide. << Do we have any estimate on when the elder Malfoy was in Hogwarts? I have this pet idea (unsupported by canon as far as I know), that he was there around the same time as Arthur and Molly. Maybe their mutual animosity was in origin a lot like the Severus/James, Harry/Draco feuds. >> Their fist-fight in Flourish & Blotts and their jibes in the Top Box certainly give that impression. However, there is what seems to me to be evidence that Arthur & Molly, Minerva, and Tom Riddle were all at Hogwarts at more or less the same time. Arthur & Molly were at Hogwarts together because of Molly's reminiscence of coming back late to Gryffindor Tower after a date with Arthur. Arthur & Molly were at Hogwarts at least a little before the CoS flashback events, as Molly told anecdotes of Hagrid's predecessor as gamekeeper, a man named Ogg. Molly and Minerva look much the same age, or Molly just a little older (don't judge by Dame Maggie, judge by JKR's own sketch, in http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/lst in album titled "Harry Potter and Me".) JKR said in an interview that Minerva "is" 70. It makes a difference whether she meant "is" 70 in 2000, when the interview was given, or in 1991-2 school year of Book 1, or in 1994-5 school year of GoF, latest published book, or in 1997-8 school year of Book 7. Anyway, my point ("and I do have one") is that if Arthur and Lucius were at Hogwarts together and Arthur and Tom were at Hogwarts at the same time, then Lucius and Tom were in Slytherin House together. I envision Lucius rather younger than that, but it would be tidy for him to be one of the 'useful friends' Tom made at school. << I could imagine the map being set up so than when Fred and George are trying to figure out how to work it, Mssrs. MWPP give them a little bit of trouble, but teasingly help them along the way to the right phrase. >> Could be, but the Terrible Twins are *clever*: they invented those Canary Creams. I wouldn't be surprised if they're clever enough to reverse-engineer a magical artifact. (I am sure there is such a thing as reverse-engineering magic; I believe that is part of what Bill does as a curse-breaker.) Jodi wrote: << Rowling says her favourite animal is the otter. Weasels belong to the same family as otters, polecats and stoats, which all fit in with the place the Weasleys live - Ottery St. Catchpole, the River Otter, Stoatshead Hill... So would this indicate some significance of this whole group of animals, ? >> Ferrets are also in that family. USAmericans tend to view ferrets as adorably cute furry pets, like kittens except exotic, but JKR seems to have a less positive view of ferrets. Buckbeak eats them and Draco is Transfigured into one. Laura quoted Zoe's page: << It was also thought that [weasels] could hypnotize their prey by dancing in front of it!" >> This, like that page Eloise cited that spoke of weasels as a Christian symbol because they hunt serpents, struck me as someone having confused weasels with Mongooses. Nik Fry wrote: << JKR doesn't give us details as to how exactly one goes about turning vapor into an Ugly Baby. >> It has been *very plausibly* suggested that the method involved keeping poor Bertha's body alive long enough to serve as surrogate mother. From chetah27 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 18 07:29:04 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 07:29:04 -0000 Subject: Lucius Malfoy and CoS plot/Lucius vs. Arthur In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40008 Nik says: > If I correctly remember > Riddle's explanation to Harry about how he used Ginny, he says that > he was *very* interested in everything she had to say about Harry, > especially dealing with Voldemort's downfall. I had always assumed > that was because Diary!V had no knowledge of this. I took this to mean that Diary!V > had all the knowledge, memories, etc. of Tom *up to that point in time*, but that he doesn't > have any connection to Voldemort after he is stored in the diary. Grey Wolf replies: > That's one reason to think that the plan was *NOT* thought up by > Diary!Voldemort, but by either Lucius himself or Vapor!Voldemort. The > reason? Diary!V looks pretty much out of touch with the modern reality: > doesn't know his future self had been beaten until Ginny tells him, > etc. It looks like no-one had fed him any ink for quite a while. Thus, > the plan couldn't have originated in him. Well, Diary!Voldemort being left so high and dry seems odd to me. Vapor!Voldemort having someone throw the diary into Hogwarts in HOPES that Ginny(or the unsuspecting student) will notice it, not go to her father about it, and write in it enough to get Diary!Voldemort interested in Harry Potter; and then not having the younger, stronger version of himself informed on how much he should hate the boy- leaving alot of things up to chance, isn't he? I find it more likely that Lucius was just being mischevious, or that he was in contact enough with Diary!Voldemort to find out if he knew how to open the CoS- figuring that such a catastrophe would be sure to get rid of Dumbledore, in which it almost did(to me, that basically seems to be Lucius's plan: throw a wrench in Hogwarts and blame Dumbledore enough to get him thrown out). He must have realized that the diary was Voldemort's, 50 years ago when the CoS was first opened- and, as we know Lucius is most certainly not an idiot, it would be reasonable for him to deduct that something evil and involving Muggle-killings probably involved his former master(we don't know if Voldie ever told any of his followers about his childhood crusades). I just don't see Lucius being in contact with Vapor!Voldemort. If he were, why wouldn't Voldemort be demanding he show up and help him in his crippled state? Voldemort himself stated that he was at a pretty low time during this period of his nonbodiness, so I think a servant contacting him would immediately be told to come and nurse him some strength. Hmm...nope, I think Lucius was just being his plain old malicious self. But, then again...as has been pointed out, his son very well could have died. But I find it very interesting that Draco tells Pollyjuiced!Harry that his father told him to "keep his head down"- as in, not looking around incase his eyes happen to meet a pair of big yellow ones? Marina wrote: >I think Lucius believed that Draco was in no danger. He wasn't there >the first time the Chamber was opened, and didn't know the details of >what had happened. He didn't even know there was a basilisk involved. >The legend says only that Salazar had left behind him an unspecified >monster that will one day come out and clear all the Mudbloods out of >Hogwarts. The implication is that it will *only* harm Mudbloods, >leaving Hogwarts to the Purebloods who deserve it such as Draco. Still, I find the "keep your head down" comment interesting. Lucius could have told Draco that after learning what the instances were at the school and suspecting what the monster might be. But I do agree that I don't think Lucius quite knew what he was unleashing on the school, just that it was controllable as it was made to harm Mudbloods. Also... Darrin states: > Now, as to the first, I don't think canon excludes switching houses > for drastic reasons Hmm...well, the Sorting Hat does sing(it's either in the first book or the fourth book, but I think it's the fourth) that it has "not been wrong yet"(not sure on the exactness of the quote). So that woud suggest that each person it has sorted has always been rightly done. And.. Joe ponders > P.S. Do we have any estimate on when the elder Malfoy was in > Hogwarts? I have this pet idea (unsupported by canon as far as I > know), that he was there around the same time as Arthur and > Molly. Maybe their mutual animosity was in origin a lot like the > Severus/James, Harry/Draco feuds. Umm...I thought during the little fight outside of Flourish and Blotts in the beginning of PoA, it hints/states that Lucius and Arthur are old enemies dating all the way back to Hogwarts. (does not Hagrid make this statement?) If it werent' so late, I might run down the stairs and get my copy, but I'll just post this and wait for some LOON to come along and correct me. =P Joe again: > I know this makes him pretty old to have his first child, but > Narcissa could be a lot younger than him, Draco could have > been an accident, he was too busy building up his position with > Voldemort for all those years to worry about children, etc. Lots of > possibilities. I find that very likely. From a comment Mrs.Weasely makes to Harry in GoF about her and Aurthur strolling the Hogwarts grounds late at night, I'm betting they met/fell in love duing Hogwarts and then got married right after- getting a bit of an early start. So it's entirely possible that Lucius didn't marry until late in life(and I think it fits his character. He might have even married for political reasons when he finally did), and that's why he and Molly & Aurthur are the same age. ~Aldrea (I'm still not caught up, but I'm working on it...tomorrow. *yawns and goes off to sleep*) From evilgeniussmurf at yahoo.com Tue Jun 18 04:15:44 2002 From: evilgeniussmurf at yahoo.com (evilgeniussmurf) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 04:15:44 -0000 Subject: Filch Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40009 While browsing through a site about British slang, I found out that "filch" is UK slang for stealing. This got me wondering about the background of JKR's Filch. Could he have been a thief? And if he was, how did he end up at Hogwarts? ~E.G. Smurf, who will now return to lurkdom From jmt59home at aol.com Tue Jun 18 10:54:43 2002 From: jmt59home at aol.com (jtdogberry) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:54:43 -0000 Subject: The Sorting of Neville Longbottom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40010 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > > > Elkins said: > > > > >>In fact, if I were Helga, I think that I would have tried to > foist > > Neville off on somebody else. *Anybody* else. Probably > > Godric. 'Cause you know, the thing about those warrior types with > the great big swords is that they can never resist a *challenge.* > They just love lost causes. And they're suckers for orphans and > widows, too. And puppy dogs. And the lame and the halt. They're > just big old *softies,* is what they are. Sentimental. And > verrrrrry easy to manipulate. > > > > Which is pretty much exactly what I think happened inside that > > Sorting Hat.<< > > I object!!!! *Raise battle axe in the air defensively* > And Hana wrote: I think though, that there must be some secondary or > undeveloped traits in Neville that helped the Sorting Hat choose > Gryffindor. > > > > The Gryffindor traits from PS/SS and GOF: > > > > brave at heart > > daring > > nerve > > chivalry > > bold > > (and intelligent since Godric made the Sorting Hat) > > > > He ~has~ shown courage in helping to fight Malfoy, Crabbe, and > Goyle in PS/SS, as well as when he stands up to the Trio so bravery > is there, deciding to fight might be considered daring (for him) and > show some nerve since he's not really the picture of fighting > strength. To add, Neville does have guts!! Remember when he tried to find Harry and Herminone in the dark at 1am to warn them. > And Darren Wrote: > Brave and bold? Neville actually asked Hermione to the Yule Ball AND > has scored a date with Ginny before Harry and Ron even approached a > girl. Harry basically lucked out with the last girl on his list and > was able to get her to bring his sister along for Ron. Again, can I add for bold and nerves, hands up who else would admit to a very angry Mcgonagall, in front of your whole house that it was your fault Black got in! It is likly, that if Neville kept quite, he might have got away with it. > > Nurturing to develop? We've got three cited examples of canon (and a > fourth implied if you count what is probably incredible positive > reinforcement from Sprout) of professors going out of their way to > help Neville. > > Lupin: Pointedly chooses Neville to tackle the boggart first, AFTER > Snape warns him. And looking closely at that scene, Neville is determind to show Lupin what he can really do!!! > Moody/Crouch: Takes Neville aside and builds his confidence up. > (Crouch has ulterior motives to be sure -- he wanted Neville to have > the solution to the second task -- BUT from Neville's point of view, > it's a teacher building him up.) I would like to know, how Neville responded to "Moody's" real idenity. It worries me a little. > And of course, Dumbledore himself: D-Dore knew he just needed to give > Gryffindor 170 points to beat Slytherin for the House Cup is SS/PS. > He could have divided it up any way and in any order possible. He > chose to have Neville put Gryffindor over the top. I agree, which was needed after having everyone ignoring him for losing those points earlier!!! > Neville is being groomed for something. By the time this series is > over, the names of people the wizards - and Muggles -- will have to > thank for their continued existence will include Neville Longbottom. Er, I kinda like the idea of Neville being the unspoken hero but it would be nice. Dogberry (who thinks that if Neville were an animagus, he would be a bear) From crana at ntlworld.com Tue Jun 18 11:18:35 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 12:18:35 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Filch, Muggle-borns and Squibs References: Message-ID: <001801c216b9$e3b13ec0$03b168d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40011 E.G. Smurf said: "While browsing through a site about British slang, I found out that "filch" is UK slang for stealing. This got me wondering about the background of JKR's Filch. Could he have been a thief? And if he was, how did he end up at Hogwarts?" In particular, "filching" is petty theft. You'd filch some stamps from the office stationary cupboard but you wouldn't filch a huge bag of diamonds.. so it fits in with Filch's petty nature. I wonder if it could be linked to him confiscating e.g. the Marauder's Map - we learn he has a whole drawer-full of similar items. Where do you draw the line between confiscating and stealing? Maybe Filch likes to pinch things like that off students because he is jealous of their ability to work magical items. Since Muggle-born witches and wizards seem to enter the WW pretty thoroughly when they discover they are wizards, e.g. Hermione seems to be planning her future career in the WW, not as a dentist (from her insistence on the important of which subjects to choose)..and leave behind their Muggle background... do squibs, like Filch, just hang around in the WW and do menial tasks? It would be entertaining if they had a letter and had to attend a special Squib school. Can you imagine loads of postmen shooting down the chimney of Filch's office, hiding letters in Mrs Norris' collar, etc, in the way the owls had to get through to Harry? :) "rosie" From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Tue Jun 18 12:13:06 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 12:13:06 -0000 Subject: Lethal Harry In-Reply-To: <3D0E1DF9.16924.34F884@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40012 Manda wrote: > That reminds me.. Was Harry actually capable of killing Sirius at > that time? He hadn't been introduced to Avada Kedavra yet. I guess he > could have used Wingardium Leviosa to hit him over the head with > something heavy or set fire to Sirius' robes, but how much damage > could he have really done? > > Manda > finally coming up with something intelligent enough to post :-) Harry has not been taught AK, nor he will ever be in Hogwarts, since its use in humans is forbidden. How would he kill Sirius, then? The question has been put up before, and there are many answers. Some believe that Harry was just bluffing (to himself), and he couldn't do magic to kill Sirius. He may have tried to strangulate him, but he couldn't use *magic*. Others (me included) believe that intelligent use of the spells he already knows could have had the desired state (then again, "intelligent" use of a chair will also kill someone. Or really, any other object with the possible exception of goldfish). How? Well, "accio heart" is gruesome, but if it can be done, can be very effective. Or you can Expelliarmus/Wingadium Leviosa his clothes, effectively throwing him around the room until he's knocked out. Or burn his clothes. Or engorgio his throat/tongue (those sweets the twins create are VERY dangerous) until he dies from lack of air. Or... should I continue? (I can probably can find a way to use any spell to have dangerous consecuences to a human being, but not all of them could be applied to the shack scene) Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, always finding new ways by which to use old spells. If you played D&D, you understand why (so many spells, so little memory). From heidit at netbox.com Tue Jun 18 13:15:43 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:15:43 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lethal Harry In-Reply-To: 350 Message-ID: <16600080.383505598@imcingular.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40013 Greywolf wrote of the ways Harry could've killed Sirius in the shack: *** How? Well, "accio heart" is gruesome, but if it can be done, can be very effective. Or you can Expelliarmus/Wingadium Leviosa his clothes, effectively throwing him around the room until he's knocked out. Or burn his clothes. Or engorgio his throat/tongue (those sweets the twins create are VERY dangerous) until he dies from lack of air. Or... should I continue? (I can probably can find a way to use any spell to have dangerous consecuences to a human being, but not all of them could be applied to the shack scene)*** And I have an addition, and a thought about AK. First, the addition. The first spell we see ron successfully do is something that would've been fatal had he done it to a human - dropping a club on a head. While there's no club in the shack, Harry could've levitated that gorgeous and undusty bed and dropped it right on Sirius's head - someone with a wand might've been able to stop it, though. Then again, Harry is still a bit in the Muggle take on life and death. But in the wizarding world, where people see ghosts daily, talk with them, even learn from them - there's no fear that there's only nothingness after death. Unless, as I suspect, the true reason AK is unforgivable - not because it causes death, but because it takes the soul and instead of setting it free for the next great adventure, captures it in the caster's wand in perpetuity. Heidi Tandy Follow me to FictionAlley - Harry Potter fanfics of all shapes, sizes and ships - 7 sickles an ounce http://www.FictionAlley.org From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jun 18 13:19:38 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 13:19:38 -0000 Subject: Young Snape / Riddle and Lucius / the Map / Weasels / Ugly Baby Voldie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40014 Joe: > << Do we have any estimate on when the elder Malfoy was in Hogwarts? I have this pet idea (unsupported by canon as far as I know), that he was there around the same time as Arthur and Molly. Rita: > Their fist-fight in Flourish & Blotts and their jibes in the Top Box > certainly give that impression. However, there is what seems to me to > be evidence that Arthur & Molly, Minerva, and Tom Riddle were all at Hogwarts at more or less the same time. Arthur & Molly were at Hogwarts together because of Molly's reminiscence of coming back late to Gryffindor Tower after a date with Arthur. Arthur & Molly were at Hogwarts at least a little before the CoS flashback events, as Molly told anecdotes of Hagrid's predecessor as gamekeeper, a man named Ogg. > But this is contradicted by Draco's revelation that the first opening of the Chamber of Secrets was before Lucius' time. Probably Hagrid only began training as a gamekeeper at the age of thirteen. When Harry imagines what would become of him if he were expelled, he thinks of following Hagrid around the grounds carrying his bag. The way Hagrid wades into the fight between Lucius and Arthur, pulling them apart, suggests to me that he is the older and remembers breaking up fights between them at Hogwarts. Ogg could have stayed on the job as Sr. Gamekeeper for a long time after Hagrid grew up. Riddle would have been gone by that time. If the Weasleys had been students at Hogwarts when Riddle was there, I think we would have seen them react to the mention of his name at the end of CoS. Would they have forgotten such a dynamic, charismatic individual, who mysteriously disappeared after he left school? Pippin From jloveys at zoom.co.uk Tue Jun 18 13:51:07 2002 From: jloveys at zoom.co.uk (Jedi Knight Jo) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:51:07 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Symbols next to Characters' Names (HP&Me) - Meanings? References: Message-ID: <000e01c216cf$33a3a840$363d68d5@jody> No: HPFGUIDX 40015 >>I don't know if this has already been brought up, but I was reading the FAQs and it seemed like the symbols in JKRs journal were under debate as to what they really are. I copied down all of them while watching (faithful-obsessive fan that I am) and was looking for patterns - I came to a conclusion, a few actually:<< Wow. You must have really really good eyesight to have seen all of them. I tried when it was on but I couldn't see very much. >>Then there is a coloured in square, or an open circle. I think the dark square is if the character is male (except, oddly enough, in the case of Neville Longbottom), thus making the circle mean the character is female. << Maybe Neville is going to reveal something later on in the books? ;) >>After that, there are symbols of stars, one plain, one in a circle, and an "N" in a square. I think simply the star means 1/2 blood (Seamus has the star with a circle, but the circle is crossed out, making him half blood, as he says), the star with the circle around it is pure-blood, and the N with a square around it is muggle born<< I thought they were supposed to represent how powerful they were for JK's reference? That wouldn't necessarily mean that the symbols stood for their pureness (or not) of blood, would it? Hermione is (or seems to be for now) a much more powerful witch than, say, Neville - but she is Muggle-born and Neville is pure-blood. On the blood front though, how pure is Harry? His mum and dad were a witch and a wizard, but his mum was Muggle-born, so does that make him pure-blood or half-blood? --Jo [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From heidit at netbox.com Tue Jun 18 14:02:11 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:02:11 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Riddle and Lucius, Filch In-Reply-To: 8 Message-ID: <16600080.1987556292@imcingular.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40016 Catlady wrote: *** Anyway, my point ("and I do have one") is that if Arthur and Lucius were at Hogwarts together and Arthur and Tom were at Hogwarts at the same time, then Lucius and Tom were in Slytherin House together. I envision Lucius rather younger than that, but it would be tidy for him to be one of the 'useful friends' Tom made at school.*** Tom was a 6th year when he opened the chamber, iirc. Or possibly a 5th year - it's a bit vague. But this means that if Lucius started when Tom was a 7th year and Head Boy, the Chamber could've been opened after Lucius' time, and Lucius and Tom could've been schoolfriends. But I've always liked the theory, which isn't contradicted by canon, but not supported by it either, that Lucius is about 10 years younger than Tom, that Lucius' father was a patron of Tom's or hired him to tutor Lucius. Rosie wrote that filch may confiscate things from students "because he is jealous of their ability to work magical items..." But Filch can work some magical items - things like Mrs Skower's cleaning supplies, for one. And it's implied that Muggles can enjoy Magical things in Book 3 when hermione says that she wants the toothflossing stringmints for her parents, and in Book 4 when dudley eats the twins' candy. He just, it seems, can't use anything that needs a wand. Of course, this gets b ack to the question of whether he could make a potion - is it knowing the ingredients, or is it being magical *and* knowing what to put in? JKR has not made it clear yet. Heidi Tandy Follow me to FictionAlley - Harry Potter fanfics of all shapes, sizes and ships - 7 sickles an ounce http://www.FictionAlley.org. From bard7696 at aol.com Tue Jun 18 13:03:27 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 13:03:27 -0000 Subject: Lethal Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40017 > Manda wrote: > > That reminds me.. Was Harry actually capable of killing Sirius at > > that time? He hadn't been introduced to Avada Kedavra yet. I guess he > > could have used Wingardium Leviosa to hit him over the head with > > something heavy or set fire to Sirius' robes, but how much damage > > could he have really done? > > > > Manda > > finally coming up with something intelligent enough to post :-) > And Da Grey Wolf wrote: > Harry has not been taught AK, nor he will ever be in Hogwarts, since > its use in humans is forbidden. How would he kill Sirius, then? The > question has been put up before, and there are many answers. Some > believe that Harry was just bluffing (to himself), and he couldn't do > magic to kill Sirius. He may have tried to strangulate him, but he > couldn't use *magic*. > > Others (me included) believe that intelligent use of the spells he > already knows could have had the desired state (then again, > "intelligent" use of a chair will also kill someone. Or really, any > other object with the possible exception of goldfish). > > How? Well, "accio heart" is gruesome, but if it can be done, can be > very effective. Or you can Expelliarmus/Wingadium Leviosa his clothes, > effectively throwing him around the room until he's knocked out. Or > burn his clothes. Or engorgio his throat/tongue (those sweets the twins > create are VERY dangerous) until he dies from lack of air. Or... should > I continue? (I can probably can find a way to use any spell to have > dangerous consecuences to a human being, but not all of them could be > applied to the shack scene) > And I wrote: The first thing that came to my mind was that handy little binding spell around someone's throat. (Cue Darth Vader: "I find your lack of faith disturbing.") All your ideas are really good, but the one problem I see with them (and my binding throat for that matter) is that they do not kill quickly. Remember, Harry was not alone in the room. Lupin probably would have stopped him had Harry done something that took any longer than a second. Hermione might have even stopped him, reasoning that Harry might hate her forever for it, but at least he wouldn't be a murderer. ON THE OTHER HAND... we know that Harry has sometimes done powerful things without realizing it. He has: Essentially apparated to the top of his school roof when bullies were chasing him. Remember, apparation is so tricky a spell that Hogwarts students aren't allowed to practice it until after graduation, and then only with a license. SS/PS Caused a human being to inflate -- like the expanding tongue, another seemingly amusing spell that could be dangerous. PoA Made thick glass disappear completely (freeing the snake in the zoo) SS/PS And he did these all when he was scared or angry. Is it possible that Harry could have spontaneously used AK, simply because he wanted to? Darrin -- If I could spontaneously make things vanish -- Goodbye, credit card company! From pegoheart144 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 18 13:24:15 2002 From: pegoheart144 at yahoo.com (Peggy Gross) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 06:24:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: New acronym expressing my views In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020618132415.52005.qmail@web10406.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40018 Here's something I have wondered about concerning Snape. He had the Dark Mark on his arm and felt it burn so he knew Voldemort is back. Why didn't he tell Dumbledore when he felt it? That would have been a way to track where Harry and Cedric were. Dumbledore could have sent Snape to help. Does anyone know how much time past from when Harry and Cedric touched the Triwizard Cup until Harry returned? For some reason, that's not clear to me. I think Snape said the mark had burned a couple of hours before he showed it to Fudge in the Hospital Wing. "Peggy Gross" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From crana at ntlworld.com Tue Jun 18 14:11:24 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 15:11:24 +0100 Subject: Pure/Half-blood - Filch References: <000e01c216cf$33a3a840$363d68d5@jody> Message-ID: <001101c216d2$085497a0$0fb068d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40019 Jo said: "I thought they were supposed to represent how powerful they were for JK's reference? That wouldn't necessarily mean that the symbols stood for their pureness (or not) of blood, would it? Hermione is (or seems to be for now) a much more powerful witch than, say, Neville - but she is Muggle-born and Neville is pure-blood. On the blood front though, how pure is Harry? His mum and dad were a witch and a wizard, but his mum was Muggle-born, so does that make him pure-blood or half-blood?" I would have thought that made him pure-blood: both magical parents. Yet Riddle says Harry is a "half-blood" like himself, which seemed to me to be very strange. I thought it might just be a mistake... Heidi said: "But Filch can work some magical items - things like Mrs Skower's cleaning supplies, for one. And it's implied that Muggles can enjoy Magical things in Book 3 when hermione says that she wants the toothflossing stringmints for her parents, and in Book 4 when dudley eats the twins' candy. He just, it seems, can't use anything that needs a wand." All the best stuff needs a wand :) I mean the shrinking keys Mr Weasley mentions obviously "work" for Muggles (although I'm not sure they enjoy them!). I think there might be a difference (as you say with the wands) between things you operate (e.g. the map, things that are more wand-based) and things that are magically created but don't require magic to be operated (e.g. cleaning supplies, toffee). I didn't explain it very well, but I was imagining Filch confiscating these items, jealous of the students being able to work them, then getting very frustrated with not being able to work them himself and throwing them in a drawer. Ok, maybe I'm stretching the "filch/steal" thing a bit far. At least his first name is easy to interpret! Wonder if there's any significance in "Norris"... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From heidit at netbox.com Tue Jun 18 14:27:48 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:27:48 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Pure/Half-blood - Filch In-Reply-To: c950a8a8 Message-ID: <16600080.181662539@imcingular.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40020 Rosie asked: **Wonder if there's any significance in "Norris"...** Mrs Norris is the name of a character in Northanger Abbey, by Jane Austen. JKR is an Austen fan, so many have assumed that there's a connection. 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] Pure/Half-blood - Filch Real-To: "rosie" Jo said: "I thought they were supposed to represent how powerful they were for JK's reference? That wouldn't necessarily mean that the symbols stood for their pureness (or not) of blood, would it? Hermione is (or seems to be for now) a much more powerful witch than, say, Neville - but she is Muggle-born and Neville is pure-blood. On the blood front though, how pure is Harry? His mum and dad were a witch and a wizard, but his mum was Muggle-born, so does that make him pure-blood or half-blood?" I would have thought that made him pure-blood: both magical parents. Yet Riddle says Harry is a "half-blood" like himself, which seemed to me to be very strange. I thought it might just be a mistake... Heidi said: "But Filch can work some magical items - things like Mrs Skower's cleaning supplies, for one. And it's implied that Muggles can enjoy Magical things in Book 3 when hermione says that she wants the toothflossing stringmints for her parents, and in Book 4 when dudley eats the twins' candy. He just, it seems, can't use anything that needs a wand." All the best stuff needs a wand :) I mean the shrinking keys Mr Weasley mentions obviously "work" for Muggles (although I'm not sure they enjoy them!). I think there might be a difference (as you say with the wands) between things you operate (e.g. the map, things that are more wand-based) and things that are magically created but don't require magic to be operated (e.g. cleaning supplies, toffee). I didn't explain it very well, but I was imagining Filch confiscating these items, jealous of the students b eing able to work them, then getting very frustrated with not being able to work them himself and throwing them in a drawer. Ok, maybe I'm stretching the "filch/steal" thing a bit far. At least his first name is easy to interpret! Wonder if there's any significance in "Norris"... [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 foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jun 18 14:25:32 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:25:32 -0000 Subject: Why is AK unforgiveable was Re: Lethal Harry In-Reply-To: <16600080.383505598@imcingular.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40021 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., (heidi tandy) wrote: > Then again, Harry is still a bit in the Muggle take on life and death. But in the wizarding world, where people see ghosts daily, talk with them, even learn from them - there's no fear that there's only nothingness after death. Unless, as I suspect, the true reason AK is unforgivable - not because it causes death, but because it takes the soul and instead of setting it free for the next great adventure, captures it in the caster's wand in perpetuity. > I think it's unforgiveable because it's a spell that can *only* be done with murderous intent and has no use other than killing. AK and the other two spells are unforgiveable against humans only, not, for example, spiders, so it's possible that they are taught at Hogwarts and other wizarding schools. Cedric's mother comforts herself by saying, "He must have been happy." Tying this into JKR's interview comments that people who are happy don't become ghosts, I think Cedric's mother was telling Amos that their son would be at peace. It would be a pretty hollow statement if she thought his spirit was trapped inside a wand. I think the wand echoes are just that: echoes created by the wand's magic as it strikes its target. They are a reflection of the personality, but they don't capture the soul of the person any more than wizard photographs do. Pippin From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Jun 18 15:43:58 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 11:43:58 EDT Subject: Snape in Graveyard?/ Unforgivables/ Immortal vapour? etc Message-ID: <4a.d193fbc.2a40af3e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40022 Peggy Gross: > Here's something I have wondered about concerning > Snape. He had the Dark Mark on his arm and felt it > burn so he knew Voldemort is back. Why didn't he tell > Dumbledore when he felt it? That would have been a way > to track where Harry and Cedric were. Dumbledore could > have sent Snape to help. > Well, what if he *did*? Cindy: > >> You know, I'm still tempted to go with Stunning!Harry -- the idea >> that Harry has some sort of wicked protection around him to protect >> against certain DE spells. Remember that Shield Charm that Harry >> couldn't work. I just can't figure out why else that Shield Charm >> is even in GoF if not to indicate that Harry has a natural shield >> against certain minor curses. Harry ran, and the DEs really did try >> to stun him, but they couldn't because Harry's natural shield. What if it wasn't Stunning!Harry's natural (shield-) charm, but Snape protecting him again? I guess we're getting back to the issue of how much was known about what was happening in the middle of the maze. Snape must have known (from the new intesity of the Dark mark) that Voldemort was resurrected. Did Dumbledore know that Harry and Cedric were no longer in the maze, or think they were still in pursuit of the cup? If they didn't know that Harry and Cedric were missing, there would not necessarily be reason for Snape to go to the graveyard. If, on the other hand they *did*, then it does seem out of character if Snape didn't try to do anything. He doesn't have any specified role at the Third Task, so he could have been free to go unnoticed and there certainly appears to have been time for him to have apparated back to the gates and have joined Dumbledore and McGonagall in rescuing Harry from Crouch/Moody. .................. Pippin quotes Heidi: > > Then again, Harry is still a bit in the Muggle take on life and > death. But in the wizarding world, where people see ghosts daily, > talk with them, even learn from them - there's no fear that there's > only nothingness after death. Unless, as I suspect, the true > reason AK is unforgivable - not because it causes death, but > because it takes the soul and instead of setting it free for the next > great adventure, captures it in the caster's wand in perpetuity. > > > > I think it's unforgiveable because it's a spell that can *only* be > done with murderous intent and has no use other than killing. > AK and the other two spells are unforgiveable against humans > only, not, for example, spiders, so it's possible that they are > And it is also has no counter-curse, as it seems, do the other Unforgivables . I wonder if the Unforgivables became so during days when duelling was commonplace (sidenote - am I imagining that it says somewhere that it is now illegal, and if so, why did Hogwarts start a duelling club?). It would be extremely unsporting, to say the least, if you used an unblockable curse on your opponent. In fact, it is likely that all (serious, as opposed to sporting) duels would end up with two dead wizards. Or witches (I suppose I shouldn't be sexist about this). .......................... Charis Julia: > So. . .Where was I? . . .Oh, what * is* it again! Well? Get it out > already! Huh? We don't know for sure that Arabella Figg lives in > Magnolia Crescent? That's just where Harry ended up after he blew up > Marge? Oh, please! What a feeble objection! Ok, then Mr Smart Guy. If > she didn't live in No2 Magnolia Crescent, where * did* she live? It > wasn't Privet Drive, Harry tells us it was a couple of streets away. > Do * you* know of any other streets in the Surrey of the Potterverse? > Ha! Didn't think so! > Sorry, this is going back a bit. I think there is canon evidence that Arabella *doesn't* live in Magnolia Crescent. Mrs Figg lives *two* streets from the Dursleys and Magnolia Crescent is *several* streets away. It's a nice distinction, but two isn't several in my book. No, Arabella lives in Cedar Road, or Acacia Avenue or Laburnum Mews or another street of your choice. I still like the idea of her and Sirius being an item, though. ..................... Alexander: > I was re-reading 2nd book, when I had stumbled upon the description of Harry's journey from Dursley's home to the Burrow. It contained information that, as far as I knew, contradicted the location of Ottery St. Catchpole given in the HP Lexicon. > According to HPL ( www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/ ), Ottery St Catchpole (and the Burrow) are located somewhere south of Bristol. At the same time Little Whinging is located south of London. Thus, direction from Little Whinging to the Burrow is *west*, only slightly to the south. >Still, when I have read the book, it says smth along the lines of: "You take too far to the west, Fred" Fred turned the wheel LEFT. Interesting. The only way this can happen is if they are flying not in western, but in southern direction (any from SW to SE, but mostly south). > There were already troubles with places named in the book that cannot be found on England map. I have a strong suspicion, that Ottery St. Catchpole is one of such places. In no way this village can be located in Wales - it has to be somewhere south from London, and very close to the Little Whinging. >Note this theory has one additional argument: it took not much time at all to fly from Little Whinging to the Burrow - but Ford Anglia was not a racing sport car, and couldn't cover about 250 kilometers in less than an hour (Weasleys arrived to Little Whinging when it was already light, and arrived to the Burrow when everybody was just getting up). > Of course maybe translators just garbled the words, but I find it unlikely. Still, maybe somebody will check this up. Eloise: I'm afraid it *is* a mistranslation, Alexander. The English merely says Fred 'twiddled the steering wheel'. The location of Ottery St Catchpole is rather enigmatic, it's true and I have queried it myself before now. The name *sounds* very West Country; Ottery St Mary, presumably its etymological forbear, is a town in Devon, near the south coast (located on the River Otter), well south of Bristol. To get there from Surrey, you would indeed travel south west, not due west. I don't think we can say anything about the speed of the Flying Ford Anglia. After all, it is enchanted and even Muggle airborne vehicles tend to move faster than land-bound ones. What *is* a problem as far as I am concerned is just how Molly got the children to the train on time from the West Country (*anywhere* in the West Country) in GOF especially having only phoned for taxis that morning. .................. Pippin: > What troubles me about the whole MAGIC DISHWASHER > scenario is that it's all predicated on the idea that Voldemort can't > be killed while he's a disembodied spirit. Dumbledore has to > force him to re-embody so that he can be destroyed, lest > Dumbledore perish of old age before Harry is ready to carry on > the fight. > > There must have been some way to destroy the disembodied > Voldemort, or he would have had no reason to stay hidden. > Perhaps it was a means, such as Dementors, that Dumbledore > would never use. But the mere threat of it was enough to keep > Voldemort in hiding. In the twelve years before Pettigrew returned > to him, Voldemort managed to kill exactly one person. That > situation doesn't change if Dumbledore dies. It changes if > Voldemort comes back. > That's a good point. I've always believed the Voldemort is immortal whilst disembodied theory (mostly because Hagrid and Sirius do). So why was Voldemort in hiding? Well, even if he was immortal, he was pretty well powerless. Maybe, even if he couldn't be *killed* in that state, he could be, as it were, *contained*, *prevented* from regaining his powers. However I think there is an argument against disembodied Voldemort being immortal. if he is, why does he need the unicorn blood? Firenze explains its purpose as being to *keep you alive*, suggesting that he *was* in danger of dying. Otherwise, why accept the cursed, half life that unicorn blood condemns him to? (and why doesn't that curse continue?) In fact, I am curious to know why Voldemort so wants to regain a body. He had already undergone great transformations from the days when he was Tom Riddle. One *might* expect that the next stage was some powerful, but non-corporeal form. The implication seems to be that to be effective, he requires a body, which I find odd, given that we know that wizards can use wandless magic. Eloise Who's finally caught up. Nearly. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pegoheart144 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 18 16:18:37 2002 From: pegoheart144 at yahoo.com (Peggy Gross) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:18:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape in Graveyard?/ Unforgivables/ Immortal vapour? etc In-Reply-To: <4a.d193fbc.2a40af3e@aol.com> Message-ID: <20020618161837.47792.qmail@web10404.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40023 --- Edblanning at aol.com wrote: > Cindy: > > >> You know, I'm still tempted to go with > Stunning!Harry -- the idea > >> that Harry has some sort of wicked protection > around him to protect > >> against certain DE spells. Remember that Shield > Charm that Harry > >> couldn't work. I just can't figure out why else > that Shield Charm > >> is even in GoF if not to indicate that Harry has > a natural shield > >> against certain minor curses. Harry ran, and the > DEs really did try > >> to stun him, but they couldn't because Harry's > natural shield. I don't think that was any natural shield at work. It was Harry's fancy footwork. He was zigzagging between headstones. That is what they do in the movies to avoid being hit by gunfire. > > I guess we're getting back to the issue of how much > was known about what was > happening in the middle of the maze. Snape must have > known (from the new > intesity of the Dark mark) that Voldemort was > resurrected. Did Dumbledore > know that Harry and Cedric were no longer in the > maze, or think they were > still in pursuit of the cup?> If they didn't know that Harry and Cedric were > missing, there would not > necessarily be reason for Snape to go to the > graveyard. If, on the other hand > they *did*, then it does seem out of character if > Snape didn't try to do > anything. > I wondered about that, too. How much could the spectators see inside the maze? They were elevated since they were sitting in the stands that are used to watch the Quidditch. I would think at least the judges would have been able to see into the maze. Peggy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Tue Jun 18 16:32:29 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:32:29 -0000 Subject: Death-dealing Harry (was Seven Key Things Harry Needs to Defeat Voldemort) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40024 Pegoheart wrote: > There are seven key things that Harry > will need to defeat Voldemort. Harry has picked up one in each of > the first four books. > > 1. Sorcerer's Stone ? Harry's friendship with Ron and Hermione > 2. Chamber of Secrets ?He uses his skill as a Parceltongue to > find and kill the Basilisk > 3. Prizoner of Azkaban ? He learns to use the Patronus Charm > 4. Goblet of Fire ? He learns to throw off the Imperius Curse Yep, these seem like 4 significant things. > > These are the things he still needs. I'm not sure what order > these will be in. > 5. Harry needs to learn to use the Dreamlink to anticipate > Voldemort's moves > 6. He needs to develop a defense against the Cruciatus Curse ? > This will be new ? There isn't one I am doubtful about these two: we had no way of knowing in advance about any of the other four, e.g., we hadn't heard of the Patronus before POA. There was some foreshadowing of Parseltongue and Imperius (the 'trances' mentioned by Hagrid in PS), but their significance was not clear. Cruciatus sounds too much like a reprise of Imperius. > 7. He's going to have to learn to kill. > This one, I disagree. He wanted to kill in POA, first Sirius, then possibly Pettigrew, but learnt the importance of *not* killing. I think, from the point of view of those who insist on dramatic endings (indeed, dramatic beginnings and middles), we have a fairly constrained situation: - we want Voldemort to be bumped off; - we want Harry to be the main hero of said bumping; - we want Harry to not deliberately kill anyone. It can be done - has often been done: think of Frodo Baggins at the Cracks of Doom, for example. Actually, killing Voldemort may not be the eventual outcome, anyway - but that's for another thread. David From JPA30 at cam.ac.uk Tue Jun 18 16:39:47 2002 From: JPA30 at cam.ac.uk (archeaologee) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:39:47 -0000 Subject: Dueling In-Reply-To: <4a.d193fbc.2a40af3e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40025 Elouise wrote: (sidenote - am I imagining that it says somewhere that it is now > illegal, and if so, why did Hogwarts start a duelling club?). It would be > extremely unsporting, to say the least, if you used an unblockable curse on > your opponent. In fact, it is likely that all (serious, as opposed to > sporting) duels would end up with two dead wizards. Or witches (I suppose I > shouldn't be sexist about this). I always assumed hogwarts taught dueling like my school taught (and I assume still teaches) fencing. Duels have been banned in England for a long time, but we still (if we chose) were taught to fence, or shoot. Guns also illegal to use on others - handguns banned - firearms strictly licenced - but I learned to use (as well as strip and clean) all of these things in a school taught environment. There was really nothing the teacher could have done if one of us decided to turn the gun on another (guns are also refered to as "a sort of metal wand" in PoA), and despite the "unblockable nature" of bullets most gun duels ended with only one dead person (unless westerns have lied to me). Also teaching any form of martial arts implies restraint on the part of the student, whilst I very much doubt I could have hurt my instructor (as the children probably couldn't have hurt Snape in the dueling club) I certainly could have broken noses\arms\ribs of another student whilst "sparring". We all trained to prove we could beat the opponants defence, but pulled the blows. I would imagine it to be the same in the dueling club. Two other points. Firstly Harry goes off for a duel with Draco in CoS (despite the illegality) so duels may well continue in the WW despite the illegality, meaning the teaching of how to duel may well be a nod to this. Also AK is (as mentioned in recent posts) the quickest spell to kill with, but Harry still gets his "expeleramus" out in time to catch it, meaning it must take some time. Other ways of killing mentioned recently may well be slow enough to do something about if you are on the recieving end as well. Just to heap more on, I see no reason to disbelieve Crouch\Moody when he says few people can mangage a AK so it may well be less of an issue than it seems. Secondally, despite having more than able teachers (Snape does seem a little TOO good to waste), it is only under the auspices of that ass Lockheart that a dueling club is formed in the first place and after he leaves it is never again mentioned as happening (to my recollection anyway). Why did they stop having one in the first place, and why would be allowed back (with Dumbledore as headmaster) if they were that dangerous. James (who may well have scared list members by excessive knowledge of varied froms of muggle conflict - but if he was in a wizard duel would probably throw a bag of pepper at his opponant, thereby denying him\her the ability to cast spells due to sneezing) From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Tue Jun 18 16:54:31 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:54:31 -0000 Subject: Immortal vapour? MAGIC DISHWASHER In-Reply-To: <4a.d193fbc.2a40af3e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40026 > Eloise wrote: > That's a good point. I've always believed the Voldemort is immortal > whilst disembodied theory (mostly because Hagrid and Sirius do). So > why was Voldemort in hiding? Since this comes into the MAGIC DISHWASHER theme, I'll give you an answer that fits it. It's altoghether possible that while in vapur form, although he couldn't be destroyed, he was too debilitated to prevent one of his DEs from using some dark magic to reduce him to a mere second-in-command, or even worse. Since V wants to be the boss, he had to wait until an easily manipulable DE came to help him. > However I think there is an argument against disembodied Voldemort > being immortal. if he is, why does he need the unicorn blood? Firenze > explains its purpose as being to *keep you alive*, suggesting that he > *was* in danger of dying. Otherwise, why accept the cursed, half life > that unicorn blood condemns him to? > (and why doesn't that curse continue?) The Unicorn blood was to keep him in Quirrlell's head. As in the case of Fugly baby!Voldemort, he needs some constant magical mean of support, or he would return to his normal vapour form. Then again, we know that the Unicorn blood gave him back powers, and Voldemort will do anything to gain power, especially when he is debilitated. About the Unicorn's curse: I suppose it died with Quirrell. Strictly speaking, Vapuor!Voldemort is not alive, so he cannot be affected by a life-curse. > In fact, I am curious to know why Voldemort so wants to regain a > body. He had already undergone great transformations from the days > when he was Tom Riddle. One *might* expect that the next stage was > some powerful, but non-corporeal form. The implication seems to be > that to be effective, he requires a body, which I find odd, given > that we know that wizards can use wandless magic. > > Eloise > Who's finally caught up. Nearly. Ah! That's were the cunning of Dumbledore and MAGIC DISHWASHER comes in: after the PS was destroyed, Voldemort run oput of easy options. It seems that the stone wuld have goven his Vapour form power, but he tells us in GoF he was "ready to assume again mortal life before searching for inmortal life". Dumbledore or, if you don't like dishwasher theory, some other circunstance had convinced him that to gain inmortality he had to go back to square one and start over. Thankfully, he doesn't realize this will give the oppening Harry will need to destroy him. Hope that helps Grey Wolf From pegoheart144 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 18 17:04:20 2002 From: pegoheart144 at yahoo.com (Peggy Gross) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:04:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Death-dealing Harry (was Seven Key Things Harry Needs to Defeat Voldemort) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020618170420.52428.qmail@web10401.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40027 --- davewitley wrote: > > I am doubtful about these two: we had no way of > knowing in advance > about any of the other four, e.g., we hadn't heard > of the Patronus > before POA. There was some foreshadowing of > Parseltongue and > Imperius (the 'trances' mentioned by Hagrid in PS), > but their > significance was not clear. Cruciatus sounds too > much like a reprise > of Imperius. Voldemort showed in Goblet of Fire that he like the Cruciatus curse almost as much as the AK. In fact, I think he likes it more because he's a sadist. He didn't even need to use the Cruciatus Curse on Harry. All he had to do was stand next to Harry to get almost the same affect. Yet he did both. Harry mastered throwing off the Imperius Curse after having had it used on him a couple of times. It will be interesting to see if something similiar happens with the Cruciatus Curse. > > 7. He's going to have to learn to kill. > > > This one, I disagree. He wanted to kill in POA, > first Sirius, then > possibly Pettigrew, but learnt the importance of > *not* killing. > He may not actually have that until that final confrontation in the last book. This is not the same as in POA. This would be a case of kill or be killed. Or it could be a case of kill or see everyone he cares about be killed. I also have the feeling that it will not be via the AK. We'll have to wait and see. Peggy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From crana at ntlworld.com Tue Jun 18 17:02:37 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 18:02:37 +0100 Subject: Why is AK unforgiveable & Wormtail's hand & Priori Incantatem Message-ID: <001d01c216ea$62539b80$843068d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40028 Heidi wrote: "Unless, as I suspect, the true reason AK is unforgivable - not because it causes death, but because it takes the soul and instead of setting it free for the next great adventure, captures it in the caster's wand in perpetuity." and Pippin wrote "I think the wand echoes are just that: echoes created by the wand's magic as it strikes its target. " Otherwise, Wormtail's hand shouldn't come out, should it? Unless the soul of his hand is also trapped in Voldemort's wand... If someone did Priori Incantatem on Voldemort's wand again, now that the hand, Harry's parents etc have been "freed"... would the same things come out again? Or has it "done" those ones now, and would have to start from before the ones that came out? Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ck32976 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 18 17:38:34 2002 From: ck32976 at yahoo.com (ck32976) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 17:38:34 -0000 Subject: polyjuice question.. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40029 I was wondering something about Polyjuice potion. Here's the scenario... Person A takes polyjuice with a hair of person B in it. Now Person A has transformed into person B. Person C comes along, and thinking that person A is really person B makes a polyjuice potion with something from person A (in his transformed state). Now, my question is... Who does person C turn in to? I know that this is not something that we can decide for certain, but I though that it might be a good debate for the group. I've been able to make the argument for both A & B. If the transformation is not 100%, down to say the DNA level the item (hair, fingernail, etc) will still essentially be that of person A, so in that case I would say Person C would transform into person A. However, we know that more than just outward appearences are changed during transformation (eg, Crouch!Moody being able to use Real Moody's Magical Eye, Harry not needing his glasses when he was Goyle)so it is possible that Person C would transform into person B. I also think it would matter about the time period. If the potion had already run out, the question would be moot, right? I hope that this hasn't been brought up before, and if it has, I am very sorry! Carrie-Ann (Who really needs to stop asking questions that are not necessarily able to be answered!) From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Jun 18 17:43:37 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 17:43:37 -0000 Subject: Immortal vapour? MAGIC DISHWASHER In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40030 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > Eloise wrote: > > That's a good point. I've always believed the Voldemort is immortal whilst disembodied theory (mostly because Hagrid and Sirius do). So why was Voldemort in hiding? Grey Wolf: > Since this comes into the MAGIC DISHWASHER theme, I'll give you an answer that fits it. It's altoghether possible that while in vapur form, although he couldn't be destroyed, he was too debilitated to prevent one of his DEs from using some dark magic to reduce him to a mere second-in-command, or even worse. Since V wants to be the boss, he had to wait until an easily manipulable DE came to help him. > Ah! That's were the cunning of Dumbledore and MAGIC DISHWASHER comes > in: after the PS was destroyed, Voldemort run oput of easy options. It seems that the stone wuld have goven his Vapour form power, << What Voldemort says, in PS/SS is that once he has the Elixir of Life he will be able to create a body of his own. I always thought that he would have needed to use the same spell that he did in GoF, but that he didn't want to until he had the elixir and could ensure that the new body would be immortal. Another flaw in DISHWASHER--According to the theory, Dumbledore knew that Voldemort was scheming with other DE's including Malfoy, and this was what persuaded Dumbledore to act instead of waiting for Harry to grow stronger. The trouble is there are two steps to the resurrection process, and Voldemort needs a weak wizard who's dependent on him only for the first part--putting him in ugly baby form. If Pettigrew and Voldemort were strong enough to overcome a powerful wizard like Crouch Sr., they could have confronted another of the DE's and enlisted him in the plot. In fact they did do this with Crouch Jr.. If he hadn't been available, they could have used someone else, since according to Dishwasher there were lots of wizards who were still helping Voldemort and Dumbledore knew this. How did Dumbledore insure that Pettigrew was the one chosen to donate his flesh? Suppose Voldemort decided to use another wizard instead? Pippin From rvotaw at i-55.com Tue Jun 18 17:11:06 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 12:11:06 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Sorting of Neville Longbottom Message-ID: <6328644.1024420266439.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40031 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Dogberry > wrote: > Er, I kinda like the idea of Neville being the unspoken hero but > it would be nice I agree. I never thought much of Neville until the revelation in HPGoF about his parents' insanity. I think it explains a good deal about him. He's not had them for role models, for some reason or another no one seems to want to talk about what happened to them in the wizard world, probably due to the sheer horror of it. We know he visits them regularly, he's got to have some inner courage to keep doing that. It seems it would be easier to stay away and try not to think about them, but that's not what he does. When Moody/Crouch showed confidence in him, Neville was able to perform to expectations. Now of course Moody/Crouch had his own motives there, but still, it shows that Neville just needs someone to believe in him to help his own confidence grow. Richelle P.S. This is my first post, hope I've done everything right! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kkearney at students.miami.edu Tue Jun 18 18:27:33 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 18:27:33 -0000 Subject: polyjuice question.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40032 Carrie-Ann wrote: > I was wondering something about Polyjuice potion. Here's the > scenario... > Person A takes polyjuice with a hair of person B in it. Now Person A > has transformed into person B. Person C comes along, and thinking > that person A is really person B makes a polyjuice potion with > something from person A (in his transformed state). Now, my question > is... Who does person C turn in to? Perhaps person C would turn into person A turned into person B. In other words, they would take on the appearance of person B for the remainder of person A's hour, and then turn "back" into person A for the remainder of his or her own hour. After all, if Polyjuice Potion is able to detect every aspect of a person's appearance from just one hair, then it would probably be able to detect both the original and tranformed characteristics of a person from the same hair. -Corinth, who just discovered this group and is thrilled to learn she is not the only person who obsesses over details of a fictional universe. From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Jun 18 19:26:28 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 15:26:28 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Immortal vapour? MAGIC DISHWASHER Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40033 Grey Wolf: > > Eloise wrote: > > That's a good point. I've always believed the Voldemort is immortal > > whilst disembodied theory (mostly because Hagrid and Sirius do). So > > why was Voldemort in hiding? > > Since this comes into the MAGIC DISHWASHER theme, I'll give you an > answer that fits it. It's altoghether possible that while in vapur > form, although he couldn't be destroyed, he was too debilitated to > prevent one of his DEs from using some dark magic to reduce him to a > mere second-in-command, or even worse. Since V wants to be the boss, he > How did I know that the magical kitchen appliance was going to be rolled out? That's very much what I was saying in the part you snipped , except that I was suggesting he could be controlled by the Light side. > > > However I think there is an argument against disembodied Voldemort > > being immortal. if he is, why does he need the unicorn blood? Firenze > > explains its purpose as being to *keep you alive*, suggesting that he > > *was* in danger of dying. Otherwise, why accept the cursed, half life > > that unicorn blood condemns him to? > > (and why doesn't that curse continue?) > > The Unicorn blood was to keep him in Quirrlell's head. As in the case > of Fugly baby!Voldemort, he needs some constant magical mean of > support, or he would return to his normal vapour form. Then again, we > know that the Unicorn blood gave him back powers, and Voldemort will do > I don't think canon actually *says* that is the reason for the unicorn blood. And anyway, why did he *need* to be in Quirrell's head? Would becoming vapour be so catastrophic at this point? Was Voldemort *always* under Quirrell's turban? Was it Quirrell that crawled across the floor of the Forbidden Forest? Or was it a cloaked vapour as implied in the CTMNBN? > > About the Unicorn's curse: I suppose it died with Quirrell. Strictly > speaking, Vapuor!Voldemort is not alive, so he cannot be affected by a > But that seems to be precisely the point made by Firenze: only one as desperate as Voldemort would take on the consequences of drinking unicorn blood. Oh, I've just realised that Firenze actually implies that the Philosopher's Stone would counteract the curse. But of course, he never got hold of it. Was he drinking unicorn blood in Albania too? I think he must have been. > > > In fact, I am curious to know why Voldemort so wants to regain a > > body. He had already undergone great transformations from the days > > when he was Tom Riddle. One *might* expect that the next stage was > > some powerful, but non-corporeal form. The implication seems to be > > that to be effective, he requires a body, which I find odd, given > > that we know that wizards can use wandless magic. > > > > Eloise > > Who's finally caught up. Nearly. > > Ah! That's were the cunning of Dumbledore and MAGIC DISHWASHER comes > in: after the PS was destroyed, Voldemort run oput of easy options. It > seems that the stone wuld have goven his Vapour form power, but he > tells us in GoF he was "ready to assume again mortal life before > searching for inmortal life". Dumbledore or, if you don't like > dishwasher theory, some other circunstance had convinced him that to > gain inmortality he had to go back to square one and start over. > I don't think that's quite the implication, although it could be. More that in the absence of the Philosopher's Stone, there was *no* known path to immortality. In the meantime, he was prepared to settle for his old strengths. I'm just intrigued that with some lateral thinking, this reputedly brilliant mind couldn't have come up with some fiendish plan to regain *strength* without the constraints of a body. I think JKR anticipated this objection, actually, as she is at pains to point out that he was powerless because 'every spell which might have helped [him] required the use of a wand' (GOF, UK HB, 567). I guess that's where conspiracy theory comes in and those of us who don't buy it just have to settle for uncertainty. Eloise > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From JPA30 at cam.ac.uk Tue Jun 18 19:38:17 2002 From: JPA30 at cam.ac.uk (archeaologee) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 19:38:17 -0000 Subject: polyjuice question.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40034 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Carrie-Ann wrote: > I was wondering something about Polyjuice potion. Here's the > scenario... > Person A takes polyjuice with a hair of person B in it. Now Person A > has transformed into person B. Person C comes along, and thinking > that person A is really person B makes a polyjuice potion with > something from person A (in his transformed state). Now, my question > is... Who does person C turn in to? To stray a little from cannon... If one assumes that we are dealing with similar ideas to those of homeopathic magic (as opposed to sympathetic magic), as is implied by the whole taking a hair of the intended person thing, then one has two possible ways of looking at it. Firstly, for non-anthropologists, what is homeopathic magic. Put simply it is using something that belonged to, or was part of, some other person (or whatever) to cause an effect on them\it. By doing something to the object one has the power to control some aspect of the owner\thing that it is from. The principal behind it is that there is a link formed from the object\hair that you have to the owner, as the object is imbued with some of the spirit (or is still linked to the spirit) of the thing you are trying to effect. I do realise that that polyjuice does not effect the person you are changing into, but I rather believe the idea is still that the hair in the polyjuice carries some of the spirit of its original owner and so you can become like them (I'm not even sure hair carries DNA so I went with a "theory of magic" solution). If the spirit of the person who you transform into is with you whilst you are transformed (as could be argued by the fact you take on their physical appearance) then the link formed from person B's hair will be to person A (so that is who you transform into). However, if one assumes that you retain your own spirit during the transformation then the homeopathic link will be to person B, regardless of their outward appearance. This would also apply to animagi, you would transform into the person, not the animal, no matter what they looked like when the hair was obtained. I rather think that the second scenario is more likely as I tend to associate something's "spirit" with their essence, or whatever, and not their outward appearance. This is in no way provable (at least with my rubbish memory of the details of the books) but I think the idea of homeopathic magic is used by JKR, knowingly or not. This is because it is a later classification\analysis of pre-existing concepts of how "natives\primitives" (ooh the ethnocentricity) do\understand magic and JKR definitely knows about folk magic and the like. Just realised how lecturey\authoritarian all that sounded, I make no claim that this is the only or right way to look at this problem. I just thought it was an interesting angle on the whole thing. Only one person really knows how magic works in the potterverse, and most of us can guess who that is. James (who is vaguely worried that his use of the word "ass" in his last post could get him into trouble, and hastens to point out he is using it in the English sense - meaning donkey - and not the American sense - meaning posterior. He genuinely does believe Lockheart is asinine though) From joeblackish at yahoo.com Tue Jun 18 20:59:19 2002 From: joeblackish at yahoo.com (joeblackish) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 20:59:19 -0000 Subject: Young Snape / Riddle and Lucius / the Map / Weasels / Ugly Baby Voldie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40035 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > Rita: > Arthur & Molly were at Hogwarts at least a little before the CoS > flashback events, as Molly told anecdotes of Hagrid's > predecessor as gamekeeper, a man named Ogg. > > Pippin: > But this is contradicted by Draco's revelation that the first > opening of the Chamber of Secrets was before Lucius' time. > Probably Hagrid only began training as a gamekeeper at the age > of thirteen. When Harry imagines what would become of him if > he were expelled, he thinks of following Hagrid around > the grounds carrying his bag. > Another explanation for the Weasley/Ogg timing dilemma - Hagrid was expelled, and was allowed to stay on as * gamekeeper*. Hagrid's title now is kepper of game and grounds at Hogwarts. Mrs. Weasley, I believe, tells the kids about Ogg, the * groundskeeper* before Hagrid. Perhaps, upon Hagrid's expulsion, Dumbledore suggested the creation of a new position as gamekeeper, since Ogg maybe wasn't quite so good with the animals. Then when Ogg retired, Hagrid simply assumed his duties. I think Mr. & Mrs. Weasley, and Lucious Malfoy, are all noticably younger than Voldemort. Lucious has told Draco that the Chamber opening was before his time, and the Weasleys don't give any indication that they were around for it before either. Joe, who really should be working now. From joeblackish at yahoo.com Tue Jun 18 20:59:44 2002 From: joeblackish at yahoo.com (joeblackish) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 20:59:44 -0000 Subject: Young Snape / Riddle and Lucius / the Map / Weasels / Ugly Baby Voldie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40036 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > Rita: > Arthur & Molly were at Hogwarts at least a little before the CoS > flashback events, as Molly told anecdotes of Hagrid's > predecessor as gamekeeper, a man named Ogg. > > Pippin: > But this is contradicted by Draco's revelation that the first > opening of the Chamber of Secrets was before Lucius' time. > Probably Hagrid only began training as a gamekeeper at the age > of thirteen. When Harry imagines what would become of him if > he were expelled, he thinks of following Hagrid around > the grounds carrying his bag. > Another explanation for the Weasley/Ogg timing dilemma - Hagrid was expelled, and was allowed to stay on as * gamekeeper*. Hagrid's title now is kepper of game and grounds at Hogwarts. Mrs. Weasley, I believe, tells the kids about Ogg, the * groundskeeper* before Hagrid. Perhaps, upon Hagrid's expulsion, Dumbledore suggested the creation of a new position as gamekeeper, since Ogg maybe wasn't quite so good with the animals. Then when Ogg retired, Hagrid simply assumed his duties. I think Mr. & Mrs. Weasley, and Lucious Malfoy, are all noticably younger than Voldemort. Lucious has told Draco that the Chamber opening was before his time, and the Weasleys don't give any indication that they were around for it before either. Joe, who really should be working now. From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Tue Jun 18 21:10:49 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 22:10:49 +0100 Subject: Quidditch match in PS was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: New acronym expressing my views References: Message-ID: <026101c2170c$a03269a0$c78301d5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 40037 Darrin wrote: > OF COURSE...another twist... Think back to SS/PS. How do you think > Dumbledore would react if he found out -- and he would have found > out -- that Snape figured out what Quirrell was up to and still let > Harry go tumbling off that broom at the Quidditch match anyway? > > Snape might have been able to bluff his way out of it, but it really > was in his best interest to save Harry. I think during the first match he was not sure about Quirrell. More than that, I think that Snape and Dumbledore planned to catch him "in flagranti delicto" during the second match . They had some plan that demanded Dumbledore to be present and Snape to be in the best position to watch the audience. But of course Harry spoiled everything by ending the match too fast, that's why Snape was so mad at the end of it. :-) Irene From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Tue Jun 18 21:14:41 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 21:14:41 -0000 Subject: Immortal vapour? MAGIC DISHWASHER In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40038 > Pippin wrote: > What Voldemort says, in PS/SS is that once he has the Elixir of > Life he will be able to create a body of his own. I always thought > that he would have needed to use the same spell that he did in > GoF, but that he didn't want to until he had the elixir and could > ensure that the new body would be immortal. I think someone (me? I don't remember) already suggested that. It's not canon based and, really, is beside the point. Voldemort could have regained it's old power AND become inmortal at the same time by using the stone. The exact method is unknow and will *reamin* unknown. > Another flaw in DISHWASHER--According to the theory, > Dumbledore knew that Voldemort was scheming with other DE's > including Malfoy, and this was what persuaded Dumbledore > to act instead of waiting for Harry to grow stronger. No, I mantain that what persuaded Dumbledore to act is two things. On a low level, he's getting old and doesn't want Voldemort to be forgotten (many wizards think he's dead, and if people like Dumbledore don't do something to finish him off, two generations from now Voldemort could do a reapearance when least expected). That's a minor thing, though. What *really* moved Dumbledore to act is the fear that Voldemort will find a dishwasher and use the *correct* embodiment method. If that happens (says MAGIC DISHWASHER), no-one will have enough power to defeat Voldemort, and darkness will rule for all eternity (more or less what would have happened if Sauron got the ring, Azash the Belliom, Torak Polgara, etc. You know how it goes). Dumbledore has made a big gamble, for sure, but it was necessary. By forcing the situation, he hoped Voldemort would rush his own plans too, which (fortunately) he did. Voldemort could have played the wait-and-see, but he's too impatient (most evil overlords tend to be). > The trouble is there are two steps to the resurrection process, > and Voldemort needs a weak wizard who's dependent on him > only for the first part--putting him in ugly baby form. > > If Pettigrew and Voldemort were strong enough to overcome a > powerful wizard like Crouch Sr., they could have confronted > another of the DE's and enlisted him in the plot. In fact they did > do this with Crouch Jr.. If he hadn't been available, they could > have used someone else, since according to Dishwasher there > were lots of wizards who were still helping Voldemort and > Dumbledore knew this. As I've said already (not that I mind repeating myself, it builds consistency), Voldemort was scared of powerfull DE. He can control weak personalities like Peter's, but he feared (when in Vapour!Form) that other DEs would use him in his debilitated state to further their own plans. Since Voldy will not play vassal to anyone, he has stopped from contacting his DEs until he felt sure in his body. Why Crouch, then? He didn't seem specially powerful to me: more like an insecure adolescent lacking a father figure, which Voldemort promptly assumed. Even Crouch, however, seems to have had an agenda of his own: why else did he teach the future enemies of his master how to resist one of his main weapons? > How did Dumbledore insure that Pettigrew was the one chosen > to donate his flesh? Suppose Voldemort decided to use another > wizard instead? > > Pippin Why would he? he's already got one. Would you, thinking you just need the flesh of a servant willingly taken, go looking for another servant, when you've already got one? Then again, there is a piece of Voldemort's personality we don't really know. Further up I said, half-jokingly, that Voldemort is impatient because all evil overlords are. Let's look into this a bit more, shall we? Voldemort, for reasons unknown, wanted to kill the Potters. He was rash with it, though. Instead of sending some lackey to get rid of the pester, or taking his minions with him, he went *himself*, *alone*. As if he *couldn't wait*. If he really *is* as impatient as this makes him out to be, and we asume that Dumbledore knows it as well (after all, after having played the spy game for 20-some years, they must know each other fairly well), it doesn't look as strange: Dumbledore HAD to send someone with the life-debt before some other innocent DADA teacher came along Albania and was possesed. Once in England, Voldemort could do quite a bit of damage, only by finding his own controllable servant (Crab or Goyle sort of come to mind). Why did he wait in Albania? He didn't have enough power to leave without a body --> he needed a faithfull servant, one easily manipulable (aka Peter). When he speaks to the other DEs about not looking for him, he does it as a way to re-stablish his power. If I was him, I wouldn't have liked a poweful DE come along, just in case. Speaking of Voldemort's favourite hiding place, he seems to gravitate to Albania, doesn't he? Why, if he cannot leave, can he *go* there after defeats. You'd say he would have even *less* energy after being AKed or fleeing after Quirrells painful death. It's canon, though, so we'll take it as an article of faith. Maybe Albania is one of the sources of magic or better still, a back hole of magic and magic is drawn to there, if it's not well-attached. No, I don't think I really believe that. Any other ideas? Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From rowen_lm at yahoo.com Tue Jun 18 20:25:26 2002 From: rowen_lm at yahoo.com (Liz Muir) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 13:25:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Symbols Next the Characters Names - Meaning? In-Reply-To: <1024397688.2419.77580.m8@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020618202526.83361.qmail@web20910.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40039 nightlysparks wrote: >>Then there is a coloured in square, or an open circle. I think the dark square is if the character is male (except, oddly enough, in the case of Neville Longbottom), thus making the circle mean the character is female.<< It seems kind of silly to me for JKR to waste space on that little piece of paper indicating if they were a boy or girl. You probably could tell that from the name, methinks. Mind you, I have no idea what they ARE for and it does seem to follow the pattern, except with Longbottom. Does this me Neville is a transvestite? Not a good thought. Maybe the circles and squares have to do with some trait we haven't seem example of yet in the books? Rowen ===== Liz Muir "I can not, I will not cut my standards to fit this year's fashions." "Life is tough, but it's a lot tougher if you're STUPID!" "The guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth then to the very center." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From rowen_lm at yahoo.com Tue Jun 18 20:49:43 2002 From: rowen_lm at yahoo.com (Liz Muir) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 13:49:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Pure/Half Blood In-Reply-To: <1024425850.3845.16975.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020618204943.61436.qmail@web20901.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40040 Jo said: >>"I thought they were supposed to represent how powerful they were for JK's reference? That wouldn't necessarily mean that the symbols stood for their pureness (or not) of blood, would it? Hermione is (or seems to be for now) a much more powerful witch than, say, Neville - but she is Muggle-born and Neville is pure-blood. On the blood front though, how pure is Harry? His mum and dad were a witch and a wizard, but his mum was Muggle-born, so does that make him pure-blood or half-blood?"<< Rosie replied: >>I would have thought that made him pure-blood: both magical parents. Yet Riddle says Harry is a "half-blood" like himself, which seemed to me to be very strange. I thought it might just be a mistake...<< Personally, I believe that JKR uses the term half-blood to include anyone who is not: a) a pure wizard decendant, several generations or so b) a muggle born This is sort of like the term "mulatto," used to describe people of mixed heritage. There aren't any particular proportions attatched. Although she could have chosen a better name if she didn't want to confuse people. lol Rowen ===== Liz Muir "I can not, I will not cut my standards to fit this year's fashions." "Life is tough, but it's a lot tougher if you're STUPID!" "The guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth then to the very center." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Tue Jun 18 21:43:41 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 21:43:41 -0000 Subject: Immortal vapour? MAGIC DISHWASHER In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40041 Eloise wrote: > How did I know that the magical kitchen appliance was going to be > rolled out? That's very much what I was saying in the part you > snipped, except that I was suggesting he could be controlled by the > Light side. Of course MAGIC DISHWASHER was coming out. It's the definitive theory. The one that explains it all. Convert or thu shalt taste the bitterness of defeat!!! j/k. ;-) Appart from the ethical/moral problems (for the light side) of controlling a debilitated being, you may see that I covered my back against that by suggesting that you need *dark* magic to control him. It stands to reason, anyway: it would probably be a version of the Imperious, if not the Imperious itself. In his debilitated state, Voldemort would take forever to fight it off, and he doesn't want to wait that long. > I don't think canon actually *says* that is the reason for the > unicorn blood. And anyway, why did he *need* to be in Quirrell's > head? Would becoming vapour be so catastrophic at this point? Was > Voldemort *always* under Quirrell's turban? Was it Quirrell that > crawled across the floor of the Forbidden Forest? Or was it a cloaked > vapour as implied in the CTMNBN? Was he drinking unicorn blood in > Albania too? I think he must have been. I suggested in my previous post (#40038) that Voldemort gravitates naturally while in Vapour form to Albania. If not, I don't really know why he didn't come looking for servants to England, and hide in some forest closer to home. This would explain why he's in Quirrell's head: he needs a body to move out of albania, and stop going back (this adendum is still in development. Expect refinements coming along if you fight against it). Canon does tell us what the Unicorn blood is for: "Unicorn blood has strengthened me, these past weeks" (PS, US ed., ch. 17). And yes, he did drink a combination of Unicorn's blood with Nagini's poison when in Fugly baby form. We know he lived off animals in Albania, by possesing them (especially snakes), so I don't think he was able to kill unicorns in that state (as a general rule, unicorns tend to be heavy fighters, and a simple snake wouldn't be a match). He just used the animal's life force to keep on going and have a small amount of power left. Canon, unlike CTMNBN, explicitly states that it was Quirrell who drank the unicorn's blood for Voldemort: "you saw faithful Quirrell drinking it for me in the forest" (PS, US ed., ch. 17). > But that seems to be precisely the point made by Firenze: only one as > desperate as Voldemort would take on the consequences of drinking > unicorn blood. Oh, I've just realised that Firenze actually implies > that the Philosopher's Stone would counteract the curse. But of > course, he never got hold of it. He drinks more unicorn blood afterwards anyay, so it seems that Voldemort *is* carrying the half-life curse on him. Maybe he just doesn't care, living a half life. He's *evil*, after all (on a side not, I see lots of listees jumping to the opportunity of declaring popular characters evil. Has anyone tried to expain that Voldemort is really a good person at heart?). > I guess that's where conspiracy theory comes in and > those of us who don't buy it just have to settle for uncertainty. > > Eloise If you converted, you wouldn't have these dilemas, since you'd see the light ;-) Then again, If everyone converted, I wouldn't have anearly as much fun as I have defending the theory. :-) Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From chetah27 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 18 22:02:45 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 22:02:45 -0000 Subject: Hagrid, the Betrayer? Don't think so... (WAS Re: The Betrayer?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40042 Joe Blackish: <>I know some listies don't like to get hung up on metathinking and authorial intent, but really, I think the way Dumbledore passes out second chances like chocolate frogs pretty much screams "You need to trust people! Learn from the wise old wizard!"<> Maybe I am completey misinterpreting you(sorry!), but are you saying that Dumbledore's bottomless pit of second chances rubs off on Hagrd, and that is why he is so very trusting? I can certainly agree with you there, if that is the case, because Hagrid looks up to Dumbledore as a father figure. Joe again: <>But on the other hand, Hagrid's screwed up time and time again. In fact, his drinking/foolish trusting/incompetence as a teacher/et cetera has caused a major problem in every single book. It seems to be a pretty major pattern.<> Naama responds with: <>In PoA, he didn't do anything wrong. I disagree with those who think that Hagrid misjudged in his choice of beasts for the first lesson and put the blame squarely on Draco and his Dad. He was - *again* - framed. In GoF ? I really don't see that he did anything wrong.<> As I am way behind, I just read Joe's post about Hagrid and your reply. I was about to point out the exact same thing after seeing if someday else already had- glad I did, otherwise I would have sounded redundant. =P But I do agree entirely with what you said. Well,(I admit, as he did that) Hagrid did mess up in PS/SS, but I don't recall him causing any other "major problems". The only big mistake I can recall him making in the 4 years Harry has known him would be his loose lips after too many cups in the Leaky Cauldron that one day, and the minor mistake of over-estimating the second- years and under-estimating the hippogriffs. But Joe Blackish argued, as pointing out Hagrid's "serious problems": <>PoA: The whole Buckbeak fiasco. He shouldn't have introduced such a dangerous creature in the first class. He should have noticed that Malfoy wasn't paying attention and should have been more in control of the situation. He has all the kids going up to play with a very dangerous creature at the same time.<> *coughs* Not to get all LOONish on you, but Hagrid did not have all of the kids going up to dangerous creatures at -same- time. Harry was the only one who trusted Hagrid enough to approach one of the Hippogriffs, and therefore the rest of the class tentively steps up and does what Hagrid tells them to do. Excuse me, MOST of the rest of the class. Draco loses no time in disobeying Hagrid at his very first teaching lesson by insulting the Hippogriff and causing the exact effect Hagrid -warned- them against: an attack. Also, they're being watched by a half-giant who would never let any of them be hurt if he could help it. He even immediately pulls the hippogriff off Draco, whom he doesn't even like, if I recall correctly. And once more, they're in a -wizarding- school. I don't really see any of them in danger as being maimed for life as Madame Pomfrey can mend broken bones, burns, and cuts so that the person is good as new. And I don't see Draco faking a hurt arm as being a "serious" or "major" problem. It was an annoyance to everyone that liked Hagrid as a friend, and also resulted in Hermione b*tch slapping Draco when he gloated over the annoyance he caused- which I still laugh at every time I read. =P Joe continued: <>And then he's the worst teacher ever for the rest of the year. The children learn absolutely nothing by feeding flobberworms lettuce.<> He deserved to be canned.<> That, also, (IMO, I suppose) is Draco's fault. Hagrid completely lost his confidence, he had wanted to make a fun class, so he tried something exciting for his frist lesson- when Draco screwed that up, he just went completely backwards. Exciting was too dangerous, he should stick to boring and safeness. He stopped putting the kids in "danger" when he went to flobberworms, and isn't that what you accused him of doing in his first lesson? <>He deserved to be canned.<> Are you saying that he was canned, or just that he should be? Because I don't recall him being canned. He is still their CoMC Teacher in GoF, in which he tries to hand in his resignation but Dumbledore, Harry, Ron, and Hermione wouldn't hear of it. As for him deserving to be canned, that really is Dumbeldore's decision. Joe yet again: <>GoF: He knows that Rita Skeeter isn't to be trusted, and he willingly speaks to her anyway (going to the Three Broomsticks together, I might add), and offers her information about himself and Harry that she exploits to everyone's detriment, all simply because she flatters him a little bit.<> *ahem* I am currently re-reading GoF, so luckily I readily remember this. *runs off and gets book* (another LOONish point) Some pages after Rita turns up at Hagrid's Care of Magical Creatures lesson, we learn how his meeting in the Three Broomsticks went: * "She din' seem very int'rested in magical creatures, ter tell yeh the truth," Hagrid said, when Harry, Ron, and Hermione asked him how his interview with Rita Skeeter had gone during the last Care of Magical Creatures lesson of the term. "She jus' wanted me ter talk about you, Harry," Hagrid continued in a low voice. "Well, I told her we'd been friends since I went ter fetch yeh from the Dursleys. 'Never had to tell him off in four years?' she said. 'Never played you up in lessons, has he?' I told her no, an' she didn' seem happy at all. Yeh'd think she wanted me to say yeh were horrible, Harry." * So you see, Hagrid's interview in the Three Broomsticks -didn't- cause any "serious problems" for Harry(In fact, one could argue that it only causes problems for Hagrid by making Rita Skeeter retaliate against him with her "Dumbledore's Giant Mistake" article). And Hagrid wasn't even able to provide the woman with anything she could exploit(and we know how good she is at that)! His honestly answerng how good a kid Harry was just caused Rita a little more work in finding the right person to ask for some dirt on Harry(which she does, in the form of Malfoy- NOT Hagrd)). Joe: <>I also think its totally inappropriate the way he gets drunk all the time, but many posts seem to take issue with the fact that he consumes alcohol in front of the children at all. Moderate consumption of alcohol is totally normal and healthy and shouldn't be frowned upon. Remember that Dumbledore himself has suggested imbibing a glass or two of sherry from time to time.<> Alright, does it anywhere state that Hagrid is definately DRUNK? Or does it not just talk about him drinking alot or perhaps "celebrating"(as in PoA)? Because in alcohol consumption, your height and weight matter, alot. And Hagrid, being as big as he is, could more than likely consume the ammount of alcohol it would take to get a grown man drunk and remain perectly fine. It may seem as though he's drinking alot, but it's not having the affect one would imagine on him. Also, I've never liked the thought that the "stranger"(Posessed!Quirrell) sat with Hagrid long enough to get him nice and shnockered. As I pointed out about his size, that would take a while. I find it more believable that Hagrid was drinking more than he thought out of his mug... Although I'm certainly not denying that Hagrid would be wise to think about laying off the drinking just a tad. Just that he doesn't have to be blamed for being a drunk and a liability when he's anywhere near a mug of ale. Joe: <>Hagrid has repeatedly shown that he does not deserve to be trusted with anything important. He simply cannot be counted on to do anything right.<> *stares* Hagrid does do things right, you seem to forget.. He an be counted on to rescue a baby Harry from his parents collapsing house and bring him safely to Dumbledore. He can be counted on yet again to retrieve Harry and bring him safely to Hogwarts. He can be counted on to safely bring the Proffessor's Stone back to Dumbledore. He can be counted on by anyone who ever needs a friend(he's there for Hermione even when he's got Buckbeak to take care of, his groundkeeping duties to look after, and a CoMC class to prepare). He can be counted on to fullfil the place of a Proffessor by teaching the CoMC Class, even though he is not a full-fledged Wizard. And at the end of GoF, Dumbledore is obviously counting on Hagrid as being part of his Anti-Dark Forces team. And if anyone can think of anymore, feel free to add them. I see Hagrid as being someone you could most definately count on to try his very hardest at whatever task you give him. Oh, and I also just wanted to say... Naama quote: <>In other words, it is not Hagrid's narrative role to do things that harm his friends. But it *is* his "job" to suffer under false allegations and prejudice, but still hold strong to his loyalty and essential goodness.<> *claps* I agree with you entirely. ~Aldrea (I think Hagrid deserves an acronym supporting him. Even Snape has one[actually, I think there are several], for crying out loud! =P) From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Tue Jun 18 22:52:38 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 22:52:38 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and Aragog In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40043 joeblackish wrote, in his indictment of Hagrid: > CoS: Nearly gets Harry and Ron killed by sending them after a > giant spider that Hagrid doesn't *think* will hurt them. > I feel this isn't entirely fair. At the time Lucius Malfoy had just taken over from Dumbledore, and Hagrid himself was about to be dragged off to Azkaban. He has to get across to Harry and Ron that there is more to be found out, in a way that does not arouse Fudge's or Malfoy' suspicions that somebody else might be present. For all Hagrid knows, Hogwarts is about to become an orgy of petrification or worse (although he doesn't know about the basilisk as such, he knows Myrtle was killed). He is grasping at straws and presumably feels the risk that Aragog will cut up rough has to be taken. David From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 18 23:58:44 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 23:58:44 -0000 Subject: The Spying Game Part II - I want you to DIE, Mr Potter. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40044 [ Editions quoted are Philosophers Stone UK paperback; Chamber of Secrets, UK paperback; Prisoner of Azkaban, UK hardback, Goblet of Fire, UK hardback. Where page numbers only are mentioned, the book referred to is Goblet of Fire. ] Finally! Another very long post - cups of tea at the ready, then :-) Analysing the Graveyard Scene is more difficult than the Shrieking Shack, where I have the events in the following book to go on. The Graveyard Scene analysis has to rely on purely internal evidence. However, I think I can make a case for the following: Unlike in the Shrieking Shack, where Dumbledore and Snape's Plan A basically works (despite problems along the way), in the Graveyard Scene Voldemort's Plan A fails, and he has to fall back on a *pre-prepared* Plan B. The Contents List: Voldemort may well be lying through his teeth (when he has them). Voldemort cannot afford to let Harry grow up. Harry can be killed. Killing or capturing Harry is indeed Plan A. Voldemort isn't completely sure Plan A is going to work. Voldemort has reasons for not just killing Harry straight away. Harry is sometimes less powerful with his wand than he is without it. Voldemort needs to weaken Harry before trying to kill him. Voldemort is genuinely surprised by Priori Incantatem. The Portkey is two-way to allow Harry a line of retreat. Voldemort's worst case assumption: Harry is too powerful to be killed or defeated. Harry turns out to have unrealised powers. Voldemort himself is the only one likely to be able to survive killing Harry. Plan B. What do we do if Harry survives? Give Harry some misinformation in case he escapes. 'Why did this band of wizards never come to the aid of their master...?' If all the Death Eaters are disloyal, why do only two get punished? Lucius Malfoy, at least, is loyal. Why are only 'outed' Death Eaters mentioned if Voldemort doesn't think Harry might survive? Can Voldemort now touch Harry? Or could he always touch Harry? Voldemort avoids mentioning that the Weasley's are more powerful than Harry realises. Is 'noxious vapour' Voldemort helpless and desperate? Is there any sign Voldemort might be communicating with Death Eaters? The use of the Triwizard Cup sends a very spectacular 'signal' to Dumbledore. Why the nine-month wait until Harry gets hit with the Portkey? The Dementors and the Giants are misinformation aimed at forcing Dumbledore in a certain direction. How many faithful servants are there at Hogwarts? What 'information' have Harry and Dumbledore got at the end of the Graveyard Scene? In opposition to the Shrieking Shack, where the mastermind behind events is Albus Dumbledore, the mastermind behind the Graveyard Scene is Tom Marvolo Riddle, Lord Voldemort. The common assumption regarding this scene has been a bit of meta- thinking; the villain ALWAYS tells the truth at the Grand Climax. It's a rule. I will indulge in two bits of meta-thinking myself: Meta-thought One: Rules Can Be Broken. Meta-thought Two: This *isn't* the Grand Climax. This is the climax at the end of Book Four. The Grand Climax will be in Book Seven. Meta-thought Conclusion: Voldemort may well be lying through his teeth (when he has them). With that in mind, I began to examine how the graveyard scene fits into the theory of an 'intelligence/terrorist war' - where both sides use misinformation and terror as weapons against the other. ***Voldemort cannot afford to let Harry grow up.*** Harry is going to be very powerful indeed when he has fully integrated all that wizarding theory he's learning into instinctive practice. Much, much too powerful for Voldemort. Voldemort has actually (and unusually) read the Evil Overlord List [1] (or the Potterverse equivalent) - he is thoroughly aware of rule 47." If I learn that a callow youth has begun a quest to destroy me, I will slay him while he is still a callow youth instead of waiting for him to mature" Harry has an instinctive skill at magic (see all four books) - not because of some magic 'destiny' to defeat Voldemort; IMO it is simply because he is what he is - Harry Potter, a genius at magic, like Wolfgang Mozart was a musical genius, or Alan Turing was a mathematical genius. There is, in a sense, nothing magical about genius. It is not truly understood, but it occurs in every generation, and almost every field. Geniuses cannot rely solely on their innate ability; they must learn their field. So must Harry. There may well be prophecies about Harry defeating Voldemort; that doesn't mean he's 'destined' to do it. The prophecies are simply stating truth - Harry has the in-born ability to defeat Voldemort. He would still have had that ability if Voldemort had never existed. And Voldemort must kill him before he can do it. ***Harry can be killed*** Harry has very powerful, instinctive defences. These cannot save him in all situations - falling unconscious off his broom is dangerous (PoA). Being attacked by Dementors is dangerous because Harry tries to 'think' his way through defending himself - he later (PoA p. 300 ) produces his powerful Patronus without 'thinking' - he just has to do it. Fighting Voldemort is dangerous, takes a lot of power, and in PS/SS takes so much power that Harry faints. (PS/SS p. 214) Voldemort can kill Harry, if he can just weaken him enough first. ***Killing or capturing Harry is indeed Plan A.*** You can't get through a detailed examination of the Graveyard scene without feeling that Voldemort really, really wants to kill Harry. He fires an Avada Kedavra at him - which would be something of a risky tactic if you *didn't* want to kill. He screams with rage when Harry escapes via the Portkey. ('He heard Voldemort's scream of fury...' p.580) Heck, he even tells Harry he wants to kill him. "And I am now going to prove my power by killing him, here and now, in front of you all,..." (p.571) But... When Harry is *not* the [official] audience: "I have my reasons for using the boy, as I have already explained to you, and I will use no other." (Voldemort p. 14. ) This doesn't entirely sound like he fully expects to end up killing Harry. He wants to 'use' him. In fact, Wormtail and Voldemort get through the entire conversation in Chapter One without once connecting the word 'kill' with 'Harry Potter'. And it's not that they prefer euphemisms either - both Wormtail and Voldemort use 'kill' - Wormtail when asking if he's to be killed and Voldemort when talking about his killing Bertha Jorkins. (p.16) Oh, yes, Voldemort would *love* to kill Harry Potter. But - ***Voldemort isn't completely sure Plan A is going to work.*** I have pointed out that Harry at the end of GoF has survived Voldemort at the height of his powers, Quirrelmort, Voldemort as Tom Riddle, a werewolf, 100 Dementors, plus assorted giant spiders, basilisks, Whomping Willows, dragons etc, etc. I would say that the most obvious impression derived from even a cursory examination of Harry's career is that killing Harry tends to be slightly difficult. As a helpless victim, Harry's a complete failure. It's the would-be assassins who sometimes find their life- span unexpectedly shortened. Voldemort's Plan A, subtitled "I want you to DIE, Mr Potter", shows evidence of careful thought, a flair for on-the-spot improvisation, and a certain amount of nervousness on Voldemort's part. Plan A includes a lot of 'softening the kid up first'. Plan A includes weakening Harry - crucio, tying him to the gravestone in a long and horrifying ordeal. Plan A is the plan of someone who knows that Harry is very strong indeed. To begin at the beginning. When Harry and Cedric come through the Portkey; practically the first thing Voldemort does is 'kill the spare'. Again, he's read '100 things I'd do if I ever became an evil overlord' [1] - at least he obviously understands rule 4. 'Shooting is not too good for my enemies'; and rule 6. 'I will not gloat over my enemies' predicament before killing them'. At least where Cedric is concerned. Harry, on the other hand, gets the full evil overlord treatment. He gets tied to a gravestone. He gets sneered at. He gets gloated over. He gets tormented. He has to suffer through a long and rather boring speech (at least, it would be boring if Harry wasn't aware that Voldemort was going to try and kill him when it finishes [grin]). It's all completely... ...sensible? Making sure your enemy is terrified and exhausted *before* you start the head to head duel isn't stupid. Making sure your enemy is terrified and exhausted is good tactics. ***Voldemort has reasons for not just killing Harry straight away*** As people have pointed out, there was a real risk Voldemort would decide he could best get Harry's blood by cutting his throat (or, given the number of beheading omens, by cutting his entire head off). So WHY doesn't he? Seems a good plan - the Death Eaters turn up and Voldemort can say 'AHA, there, the enemy you feared so much is dead at your feet' DE DE DUM! How do Voldemort and Wormtail behave when they *must* do some damage to Harry? "he saw the shining silver dagger shaking in Wormtail's remaining hand. He felt its point penetrate the crook of his right arm, and blood seeping down the sleeve of his torn robes. Wormtail, still panting with pain, fumbled in his pocket for a glass phial and held it to Harry's cut, so that a dribble of blood fell into it." GoF p. 557, UK hardback) All this exciting description neatly hides the fact that Wormtail only cuts Harry just enough to get the phial of blood he needs. This could be the life debt - or it could be Voldemort is 'scared' of Harry. Voldemort doesn't want to even try and kill Harry yet - not until Harry's a lot weaker, and he's a lot stronger. Marina suggested ( post # 39702 ) that giving Harry back his wand and allowing him to duel with Voldemort is a stupid idea (on Voldemort's part). The problem with this view is that it assumes that Harry is more powerful with his wand than without it. ***Harry is sometimes less powerful with his wand than he is without it.*** Harry certainly assumes he's more powerful with his wand: "He [Harry] usually kept his wand with him at all times in the wizarding world, and finding himself without it in the midst of a scene like this made him feel very vulnerable.'( p. 112) Wizards are more powerful with their wands. Everything at Hogwarts drills this in to the students. You do magic with a wand. A wand concentrates and magnifies your natural power. BUT, and it's a big but, you have to learn to use your wand. Harry is only half-way through his schooling. He hasn't really learnt to use his wand to an adult level. To use an example familiar to most people who use a keyboard: Harry is like someone who can manage very fast two-fingered typing. When that person learns to touch type properly, there will be a period when they're actually not as fast and accurate as they used to be; the period when they're learning the more complex skills. However, once they have fully mastered the proper use of the keyboard, they will then be faster and more accurate than in their old 'two fingered' stage. Harry without his wand can deflect the supposedly undeflectable Avada Kedavra (beginning of PS/SS). He can grow his hair back. He can apparate. He can blow up aunts. But Harry has to *learn* to cast spells with a wand; and for a time with each new spell he is actually worse off than he was without a wand. Each new spell takes him time to learn (there are numerous examples of this throughout all the first four books). Once Harry does learn a wand spell he can perform it to incredible levels; look at his Patronus in PoA, which is powerful enough to banish over 100 Dementors. But the only duelling spell he knows is Expelliarmus. And in case we've missed this, JKR spells it out: 'He [Harry] had never learnt anything that could possibly fit him for this [duel].' ( p. 573 ) Voldemort is not giving him an advantage by handing him back his wand. Voldemort is forcing Harry to fight with a tool he doesn't really know how to use - instead of allowing him to use his instinctive (and very powerful ) wandless defences. Voldemort is like someone facing a duel with the Olympic Fencing Champion. Who then says "I choose the weapons. Pistols, please." ***Voldemort needs to weaken Harry before trying to kill him.*** Voldemort's first action on starting the duel is to hit Harry with a Crucio. This isn't a killing spell. Why does he use it? Sadism? Look at the state of Harry after the Crucio: [Harry] was shaking as uncontrollably as Wormtail had done when his hand had been cut off; he staggered sideways...' (p.573 ) Crucio weakens Harry. Fake!Moody hasn't taught him to resist a curse that weakens you in a fight. Voldemort next tries an Imperius curse - why, when Fake!Moody has taught Harry to resist Imperius? Is Voldemort surprised by Harry's resistance? No. Unlike the Priori Incantatem later, Voldemort's eye do not 'widen with shock' (p.577). Voldemort has just got a measure of how much strength Harry has left, in a way that is unlikely to rebound dangerously on Voldemort. Imperius was the 'safest' Unforgivable for Fake!Moody to teach Harry to resist - it is unlikely to be crucial if Harry refuses to do as Voldemort commands (not if Voldemort already knows Harry may be able to resist). Time for another bout of weakening Crucio - except this time, Harry is expecting it, and rediscovers his ability to dodge spells (see below). Voldemort cannot allow Harry to show his ability to dodge/deflect spells. Chasing him all round the graveyard is *so* undignified. So the Prince of Lies 'downgrades' Harry's ability by comparing it to a childish game of Hide and Seek. It works - Harry decides he's not going to play - "he [Harry] was not going to die crouching here like a child playing hide-and-seek..." ( p.575 ) Harry is not really old enough to realise that finding any available cover when being shot at is also an entirely adult reaction, taught in all the best armies... Voldemort's Avada Kedavra is timed carefully, and sent when Harry has just launched his own attack. 'Voldemort was ready. As Harry shouted " Expelliarmus!", Voldemort cried "Avada Kedavra!" ' (p. 575 ) In other words, he doesn't attack Harry, allowing him to defend, he counter-attacks when Harry is concentrating on another spell. At no point in this duel does Voldemort launch a stupid, reckless attack. He takes great care to ensure that Harry is already weakened and exhausted before the duel starts, that he has to use a weapon that he's only half-trained in, that he is hit with 'softening up' spells first, that he is taunted into playing the duel Voldemort's way, and that when he is finally hit with an Avada Kedavra, Harry is concentrating on launching another spell, not on defending himself. None of these are the actions of someone who thinks that killing Harry is going to be a walkover. Unfortunately, Voldemort had no idea his wand shares a core with Harry's wand. But that's hardly his fault ... ***Voldemort is genuinely surprised by Priori Incantatem*** Ollivander does not reveal in the Weighing of the Wands that Harry's wand has the same core as Voldemort's. He did report it straight to Dumbledore (p. 605); Voldemort's surprise carries the implication that both Dumbledore and Ollivander the wand expert knew that Priori Incantatem might save Harry one day, and so kept it top-secret. Voldemort *is* surprised: "Do nothing!" Voldemort shrieked to the Death Eaters, and Harry saw his red eyes wide with astonishment at what was happening...' (p. 576 ) '... and it was Voldemort's wand that was vibrating extra-hard now ... Voldemort who looked astonished, and almost fearful ...' ***The Portkey is two-way to allow Harry a line of retreat. *** It has been suggested that Voldemort is going to use the two-way Portkey to launch an attack directly into Hogwarts, using the element of surprise. Some canon on the events when Harry returned via the Portkey: 'A torrent of sound deafened and confused him, there were voices everywhere, footsteps, screams...He was looking up at the starry sky , and Albus Dumbledore was crouched over him. The dark shadows of a crowd of people pressed in around them, pushing nearer; Harry found the ground beneath his head reverberating with their footsteps'. ( p.583 ) This sounds like any 'surprise' attack the DE's made would have been met by a considerable number of people. Personally, if I was going to make a surprise attack, I'd prefer to actually *have* tactical surprise, and not attack several hours after an obvious first move (the kidnap), when people have had some time to expect an attack and prepare for it. Portkeys are 'objects that are used to transport wizards from one spot to another at a prearranged time.' (p.66) We know that Portkey's don't have to be two way. The Stoatshead Hill portkey isn't. After they've travelled to the Quidditch World Cup, Mr Weasley is 'picking up the boot and handing it to the kilted wizard' ( p.70) - not being transported straight back. They are also timed devices - so for Harry to be able to use the Portkey several hours after it's first use means that this timing was allowed for. It can also mean that if Harry had grabbed the Portkey *before* the Rising Ceremony, it might well not have worked. This suggests that the Portkey can have only one use - if its deliberately two way nature is NOT aimed at Death Eaters, it can only be aimed at Harry. Voldemort has given Harry a line of retreat. Voldemort may well have arranged the Portkey timing so that this line of retreat is ONLY open after the Rising Ceremony, and during the time of the duel. This is not as stupid as it sounds if you accept that Voldemort is really not sure that Plan A will work. Voldemort is trying to convince his Death Eaters that Harry is not invincible. He can be hurt - by Crucio (multi-tasking again). He can be affected by Imperius (this one backfires slightly). He runs away when fired at. Ideally, Voldemort would like to convince his DE's that Harry can be killed (preferably by actually doing it) - but... if he can't... ***What is Voldemort's worst case assumption?*** That Harry turns out to be so powerful he can't be killed, can't be beaten to his knees, and Voldemort himself is stuck in a fight that can only end in him either running (bad) or being killed (worse). However, if Harry himself is convinced he's going to be killed by Voldemort, he would probably grab the first available chance of escape. It would be relatively easy to 'let' him run; then to cry out something along the lines of 'Stun him, you fools! Don't let him near the Cup!' In the event, of course, Voldemort doesn't even have to shout anything this obvious, as the Priori Incantatem ghosts do it for him. ***Harry turns out to have unrealised powers.*** Harry has an amazing ability to dodge spells. In the duel: [Harry ]" rolled behind the marble headstone of Voldemort's father, and he heard it crack as the curse missed him. " ( p. 574 - a Cruciatus spell ) [Harry] " dived behind a marble angel to avoid the jets of red light and saw the tip of its wing shatter as the spells hit it" ( p.580 - a large number of Stupefy spells.) [Harry] " dived as he heard more wand blasts behind him; more jets of light flew over his head as he fell.." ( p. 580 - more stunning spells.) Aha, we all say. Typical villains. They never can shoot straight. Heroes, on the other hand, always hit villains with a single shot: "Impedimenta!" he bellowed, pointing his wand wildly over his shoulder at the Death Eaters running at him. From a muffled yell, he thought he had stopped at least one of them..." Good, thrilling stuff, apparently straight out of the 'Star Wars' school of action writing. But: At the Quidditch World Cup: "Harry whirled around, and in a split second, he registered one fact: each of these wizards had his wand out, and every wand was pointing right at himself, Ron and Hermione. Without pausing to think, he yelled 'DUCK'! He seized the other two and pulled them down onto the ground. 'STUPEFY'! roared twenty voices - there was a blinding series of flashes and Harry felt the hair on his head ripple as though a powerful wind had swept the clearing. Raising his head a fraction of an inch he saw jets of fiery red light flying over them..." (p.116 ) Apparently the good guys can't shoot straight either. At least, they can't shoot straight at Harry... It's far more likely that this inability of other Wizards to hit Harry is a defensive spell Harry doesn't yet realise he's casting. The number of times the spells are described as hitting something else instead suggests that it may well be an ability to deflect spells - make them go over your head, around you, or to hit something else which will absorb some of their power. It's not a purely defensive 'bounce off' shield, or Ron and Hermione would have been hit in the QWC. There's another implication that suggests Harry's defences might not be a full time 'shield' - he can get hit. Mostly when he doesn't think to dodge. Harry can also force Avada Kedavra spells back. Harry has now survived Avada Kedavra twice - once as a baby, once by the unintended use of Priori Incantatem. In Priori Incantatem Harry has to force Voldemort's wand to reveal its last spells. Priori Incantatem forces the wand of the *weaker* wizard to reveal its spells. ***Why should Voldemort be the only one to kill Harry?*** Frankly, in a straight fight rather than a sneak attack, he's the only one who has a hope in hell ... And since he's (Plan B) trying to convince the DE's that Harry isn't as powerful as they think, leaving a lot of DE's dead on the ground because they tried to Avada Kedavra him and got the Avada Kedavra reflected right back (a la Baby!Harry) would not really give quite the effect Voldemort is aiming at. At the end of the fight, Voldemort is not in a bad position with his Death Eaters. Harry escaped, true, but Voldemort has shown that Harry can be captured, injured, fought to a draw. Defeating Harry is going to be tough - but it *is* possible. And there's always the hope that Fake!Moody will force some poison down the little brat's throat :-) *** Plan B. What do we do if Harry survives?*** Plan B is the back-up plan; the 'what do we do if the little swine survives *again* plan. Plan B is what happens if Voldemort has to make Harry use that two-way Portkey rather than risking having the DE's flee for their lives. It involves leaving Harry with a whole load of misinformation to relay back to Dumbledore; it involves emphasising to Harry that Voldemort is now more powerful than ever (especially that Voldemort can now touch Harry), and that Harry has only escaped by the skin of his teeth. ***Give Harry some misinformation in case he escapes.*** ***'Why did this band of wizards never come to the aid of their master...?'*** (p. 562) Well, one good reason would be the one Dumbledore gives in CoS "my sources tell me he is currently hiding in the forests of Albania." (CoS p. 242). Voldemort and the suspected Death Eaters are being watched. This is also implied in several internal contradictions within the speech. Voldemort, according to his speech, is deeply annoyed at the DE's not coming to find him. "Surely, one of my faithful Death Eaters would try and find me... " ( p.567) but later: "I dared not go where other humans were plentiful, for I knew that the other Aurors were still abroad and searching for me." (p. 567) Presumably these other Aurors were concentrating so much on Voldemort that they would have completely missed, say, Lucius Malfoy taking a little family holiday in the area. And they would never have thought of trying to follow Lucius, or using him to lead them straight to Voldemort. Of course not. Another internal contradiction: "... for I had no body, and every spell which might have helped me required the use of a wand..." ( p. 567) All the DE's fault, see. If only one of them had turned up with a wand... then later: "A wizard - young, foolish and gullible - wandered across my path... he was easy to bend to my will." (p. 567) But apparently he didn't have his wand with him. Or Voldemort suddenly decides that travelling as a noxious vapour is preferable to using all those wand spells which might have helped him. :-) ***If all the Death Eaters are disloyal, why do only two get punished? *** There is another clue that Harry is being fed misinformation here. Who gets punished during the speech? Pettigrew/Wormtail, who we *know* spent 12 years hiding as a rat rather than run back to Voldemort. Wormtail gets a tough deal during this scene. He gets to cut off his own arm, gets slammed against a tombstone: "Wormtail, who was lifted off the ground and thrown against the headstone where Harry was tied." ( p.559 ) Add this to Voldemort's treatment of Wormtail in Chapter One, and you rather get the impression Voldemort doesn't forgive lightly. Who else? Avery. Avery, whose famous 'crisis of nerve' probably suggests a genuinely guilty conscience. Avery, who interrupts Voldemort's speech, he's so terrified. Avery, who is 'trembling from head to foot'. ( p. 562 ) Avery, who gets a solid blast of Crucio, and then gets told: "You ask for forgiveness? I do not forgive....I want thirteen years' repayment before I forgive you. " ( p. 563) Who else of the supposedly unanimous-in-their-disloyalty DE's gets whacked around the graveyard? Err... that's it, really. Still, I suppose torturing people can get a bit boring. :-) Another, final point on the supposedly disloyal DE's. Voldemort: "... I had given up hope, now, that any of my Death Eaters cared what had become of me." 'One or two of the masked wizards in the circle moved uncomfortably, ..' Only one or two? ***Lucius Malfoy, at least, is loyal*** Malfoy has planted the diary. Malfoy organised the DE march. There's a lot of argument about this, but my argument is that Malfoy did both these things under orders - The Diary as an attack on Hogwarts, the DE march to provide a distraction for the (failed) escape of Barty Crouch. This is why Malfoy gets lenient treatment - he's loyal. Note that Voldemort says 'It would be foolish to act before the Quidditch World Cup is over' ( p.12) - and the DE march does take place a few hours after the World Cup is over - we are just deceived by the Weasley's treating the post-match discussions and staying overnight as part of the QWC itself. Voldemort doesn't show himself as annoyed at Lucius organising the march - in fact he describes it as 'fun' - but he does seem annoyed at Lucius cutting and running when the Dark Mark is shot into the sky. "Your exploits at the QWC were fun, I daresay...but might not your energies have been better directed towards finding and aiding your master?" "My Lord, I was constantly on the alert", came Lucius Malfoy's voice swiftly from beneath the hood.... ... And yet you ran from my Mark, when a faithful Death Eater sent it into the sky last summer? said Voldemort lazily, and Mr Malfoy stopped talking abruptly.' (p. 564) So Lucius isn't too bothered about the serious 'why didn't you find me' accusation - but shuts up immediately Voldemort mentions the much less serious accusation that he made himself scarce on seeing the Dark Mark. Why would he be more worried about the less serious accusation? Well, if it happens to be the only one that's true.. There's another point where Malfoy appears to be acting to a pre- arranged plan: Voldemort introduces Harry Potter to the Death Eaters. "Harry Potter has kindly joined us for the rebirthing party. One might go so far as to call him my guest of honour." (p. 565) Now, a natural reply to something like that might be 'Master, how did you capture him?' or 'Master, what are your plans for him?' or even 'Master, can we start torturing him right now?' [grin] What *isn't* a natural reply is what Lucius Malfoy says next: "Master, we crave to know ... we beg you to tell us ... how you have achieved this ... this miracle...[uh, what were my lines again? Oh, yeah,]... how you managed to return to us...' That is quite a violent change of subject. ***Why are only 'outed' Death Eaters mentioned if Voldemort doesn't think Harry might survive?*** A biggie, IMO. Harry gives these valuable, hard gained names to Fudge in the Hospital (Plot Exposition) scene and gets the reply: "You are merely repeating the names of those who were acquitted of being Death Eaters thirteen years ago! You could have found those names in old reports of the trials!" ( p. 613, Fudge.) So those names aren't so valuable after all, are they? Strange that Voldemort only said those particular names, isn't it? ***Can Voldemort now touch Harry? Or could he always touch Harry?*** I've pointed out in another post (# 39061 ) that Dumbledore's 'Voldemort cannot touch you' speech at the end of PS/SS can be read as 'Quirrel could not touch you' without implying anything about Voldemort. Voldemort himself clearly believes that he could not touch Harry. Look how tentatively he does it. "Voldemort raised one of his long white fingers, and put it very close to Harry's cheek...Harry felt the cold tip of the long white finger touch him..." ( p.566 ) No slaps, grabs, or punches - just a very cautious touch with the tip of a finger. If Voldemort had found himself unable to touch Harry, he would probably have just got a blistered finger. I presume he would then have had the self-discipline not to swear loudly and hop around the DE circle; instead he would have continued with exactly the same speech he gives. (He'd probably have missed out the triumphant laugh [grin]). It's important to convince both Harry and the DE's that he's the stronger, after all. But Harry feels pain when Voldemort touches him. Compare the pain he feels in the Graveyard, with the pain he felt when Quirrelmort touched him. "Harry felt Quirrel's hand close on his wrist. At once a needle-sharp pain seared across Harry's scar. (PS/SS p. 213) "Harry felt the cold tip of the long white finger touch him and thought his head would burst with the pain." p.566 The similarity of Harry's reaction suggests that his defence system, whatever it is, is working overtime in both cases. So why can Voldemort now touch him? The real difference between Quirrelmort and Voldemort is that possession has a weakening effect on the possessed body - Quirrel needed the unicorn blood to last as long as he did. "The blood of a unicorn will keep you alive, even if you are an inch from death..." ( PS/SS p. 188) "..my possession of them [animals and quite possibly humans] shortened their lives; none of them lasted long ..." (p.567) Risen Voldemort was always going to be able to touch Harry. Risen Voldemort is strong, healthy and magically powerful - unlike the weakened Quirrelmort, who couldn't withstand Harry's defences when they were working full blast, and died the instant Voldemort withdrew possession. This is the one point in the scene where we don't see Voldemort's misinformation at work. We are seeing Dumbledore fooling Voldemort ... *** Voldemort avoids mentioning that the Weasley's are more powerful than Harry realises*** Voldemort remarks that he was "Not yet strong enough to risk kidnap in the midst of a horde of Ministry wizards. ( p. 570 ) Since Harry stays with the Weasley's for nearly two weeks after the QWC, Voldemort obviously doesn't feel strong enough to risk kidnap in the midst of a horde of Weasley's, either. Do you notice that Bill and Charlie Weasley continue to stay at The Burrow for the rest of the school holidays? So that Harry has at least one adult Weasley with him at all times? "Molly, are you going to be all right taking the kids to Kings Cross?" ( p. 143 ) Molly says 'Of course', but later "Bill and Charlie decided to come and see everyone off at Kings Cross Station" ( p. 144.) Voldemort's speech is *not* truthful, and it is not aimed solely at taunting someone about to die. He avoids telling Harry his Death Eaters can't yet win a straight fight with the Weasley's. He tries to avoid having Harry realise that Dumbledore is not his only powerful ally. There is no reason to do that unless Voldemort thinks Harry might well survive. ***Is noxious vapour Voldemort helpless and desperate?*** Nope. Voldemort is quite prepared to wait ten years for the right person to turn up. As a young boy, he was also prepared to spend five years finding the Chamber of Secrets (CoS p. 230). Patience is definitely a Voldemort quality - he says himself: "I have waited thirteen years. A few more months will make no difference." ( p.14) It might be a pain to have to possess body after body after body (including some humans - note that he says "I *sometimes* inhabited animals" (p. 567, my emphasis), and later "I could not hope that I would be sent another *wizard* to possess" ( p. 568, my emphasis ) )- but it will keep him alive as long as he needs to wait. Quirrel is the perfect target. He's young, not very powerful, is persuadable, has an appointment to teach DADA at Hogwarts, has no previous connections to the Death Eaters, and has an unimpeachable reason for travelling in Voldemort infested areas (DADA research - he HAS to go into dangerous areas). It would be a coincidence beyond belief if such a perfect subject just 'happened' to be the first wizard to cross Voldemort's path. Voldemort is then prepared to wait another four years after the Philosophers Stone attack fails before another British wizard or two arrive. While he waits, he gets Malfoy to make an attack on Hogwarts via the Diary; just to make sure Dumbledore knows he hasn't really gone away. Note that he doesn't want just any old wizard. He wants someone he can use in his planned war on Dumbledore. Someone who knows the language and the layout, someone with useful information. The alternative is that the ONLY wizards to go near Voldemort in 13 years were all Brits. [tries to rid her mind of the vision of all those vampire movies where the locals tell the foolish foreigners 'don't go into the forest, young sir and miss. There is a dark evil in the forest.' And then the foreigners say something like 'oh, what a sinister and forbidding forest. Shall we take a stroll?'] ***Is there any sign Voldemort might be communicating with Death Eaters?***: Voldemort has a fire going in the Riddle house (p.9) - in August. I know British weather is notoriously unreliable ( and Voldemort's currently a bit of an invalid ), but honestly, having to light a fire in August *is* quite rare [grin]. A few days later it's warm enough for the Weasleys, Harry and Hermione to have an evening meal outside. ( p.57) Wizards all use their fires partly for communications. 'Amos Diggory's head was sitting in the middle of the flames like a large bearded egg' (p.140); 'I haven't got long here...I've broken into a wizarding house to use the fire', (Sirius, p.291). Voldemort asks to be moved closer to the fire - for invalid-style warmth, or so he can contact the next DE on the list? ***The use of the Triwizard Cup sends a very spectacular 'signal' to Dumbledore** Note that this works for both the Plan A and Plan B approaches. Voldemort has 'signalled' that he can get a spy right into Dumbledore's stronghold and kidnap Harry right out of the middle of Hogwarts, during a large, public event. I think the reverse Portkey was primarily to give Harry a line of retreat, and to avoid Voldemort finding himself stuck in a run-or-die situation - but it would have had a nice 'signalling' use as well, if Plan A had worked. Sending Harry's dead body back to Hogwarts would have been a very impressive 'signal'. But, IMO, not impressive enough to risk Harry's escape if Voldemort hadn't prepared for it. ***Why the nine month wait until Harry gets hit with the Portkey?*** Time. Voldemort wants Dumbledore to be concerned about the Triwizard Tournament, convinced that he's about to kill Harry, convinced throughout the Three Tasks that an attack on Harry is imminent. He wants Dumbledore to be looking the other way while Voldemort does some long term planning - like getting the giants and Dementors on board. Planning the Portkey to happen at a pre-arranged time also allows those Death Eaters who think they might be under surveillance to find ways of ditching it before apparating. And the time of the final of the Triwizard Tournament is very much public knowledge. ***The Dementors and the Giants are misinformation aimed at forcing Dumbledore in a certain direction.*** What Voldemort says in the Graveyard is "the Dementors will join us... they are our natural allies..." ( p.564 ) This implies that he is GOING to contact the Dementors. They 'will' join. But when Cornelius Fudge brings a Dementor with him- McGonagall: " The moment that - that thing entered the room, it swooped down on Crouch and - and -" ( p.610) The moment it entered the room. Unless all four people in that room are Voldemort supporters, that Dementor acts so quickly that they have no time to realise what it was going to do before it was too late. No time to act before Crouch is disposed of - before he 'cannot give evidence about why he killed those people' ( p. 610) Acting that quickly implies that the Dementor knew exactly what it had to do *before* it entered the room. It was following orders. >From Evil!Fudge? Or directly from Voldemort? Fudge uses Dementors as guards - if Voldemort has *already* persuaded all or some of the Dementors to join him, they are in an excellent position to make sure any 'inconvenient' prisoners are no longer in a position to talk. They can do a lot of undercover damage before their true loyalties become completely obvious. And once their true loyalties do become obvious, they can then take over Azkaban, and release Voldemort's supporters there. Voldemort also carefully informs Harry that he is intending to contact the Giants. One of the things we know from CoS and PoA is that Voldemort (or Lucius Malfoy, if you don't accept the 'loyal' argument) has *already* made at least two attempts to put Hagrid the Half Giant out of the way. Hagrid, who may have a good chance of persuading his relatives that Dumbledore's treatment of him shows Dumbledore is genuine in wanting to give the Giants their 'rights and their freedom'. (p. 614) Hagrid, who could completely ruin any chance for Voldemort of 'recalling the banished giants'. (p. 564 ) But now Dumbledore *knows* Voldemort is in the process of trying to get the Giants on his side. He tries to get Fudge to send official envoys. It doesn't work. The only alternative left is to send Hagrid. [ Omniscient Dumbledore fans: This may well be the sort of chess- style gambit you can't ignore, because ignoring it will lead directly to checkmate. Dumbledore would have no choice but to try and head Voldemort off - even if he has realised Voldemort told Harry this deliberately, and does see the trap that's looming ahead.] But I hope Dumbledore has warned Hagrid he's probably heading into a trap.... *** How many faithful servants are there at Hogwarts?*** One. Voldemort says so. Very clearly indeed. Several times, in fact, just in case Harry has missed this point. There's just one, OK? One. Absolutely, totally, definitely ONE. Honest. :-) ***What 'information' have Harry and Dumbledore got at the end of the Graveyard Scene?*** Voldemort has risen again. However, he's now a raving megalomaniac with no common sense. He was far too helpless during his exile to think about anything but survival... and those DE's, eh? Just can't get the staff these days... Disloyal, can't aim straight, not very bright...nine months after Voldemort got back to Britain, and the only thing he's done is prepare a potion... hasn't even thought to contact the Dementors or the Giants yet, so there's just time to send an envoy or two...He's not completely certain about Snape's betrayal, either, so perhaps if you try and get Snape to convince Voldemort that he was really a double agent all that time Snape might survive it ... Oh, and there's only one agent at Hogwarts. Who you've now caught. So that's all right, isn't it? Which is, of course, exactly the sort of intelligence you want the opposing side to have, given that 'I'm so strong you don't dare start a fight' is probably not going to work. Not when you've had to fly into exile in Albania for the past few years. Leading your enemy into a too-early attack because they think you're weak ... directing them into traps ... that might work. And Voldemort's trying it. Order of the Phoenix might be very dark indeed ... Pip (who has now frightened herself silly about Hagrid, and is hoping she's got that bit wrong) Squeak. [1]The Evil Overlord List is Copyright 1996-1997 by Peter Anspach. http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html From ck32976 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 18 23:59:04 2002 From: ck32976 at yahoo.com (ck32976) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 23:59:04 -0000 Subject: polyjuice question.. (Long & Confusing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40045 James wrote: > If one assumes that we are dealing with similar ideas to those of > homeopathic magic (as opposed to sympathetic magic), as is implied by > the whole taking a hair of the intended person thing, then one has > two possible ways of looking at it. This is all a bit over my head, as I have never been much into magical theories in an archeological/homeopathic/sympathetic/practical manner. (I have, however always loved magical stories and ideas in books, movies and my imagination) Okay, so, I've strayed a bit from what I'm trying to say, sorry! : ) As I was saying, although this theory is a bit over my head, I find it rather interesting, and I'll try to comment. If I'm way off the mark, please let me know... James again: ... >I rather believe the idea is still that the hair > in the polyjuice carries some of the spirit of its original owner and > so you can become like them (I'm not even sure hair carries DNA so I > went with a "theory of magic" solution). Yes, Hair does carry DNA, well the hair follicles do... > If the spirit of the person who you transform into is with you whilst > you are transformed (as could be argued by the fact you take on their > physical appearance) then the link formed from person B's hair will > be to person A (so that is who you transform into). I don't think that I understand this part... From the explaination, I would think that you mean that since person A has transformed into person B, the link would be to person B (the original owner of the hair...), but you go on to say that it would be person A. Am I confused, or is that an error (It is so hard to keep up with all this person A, B & C Stuff...I'm sorry I started it) Let's say for ease of understanding that person A= "Crouch Jr." person B= "Moody," and person C= "Snape" So if "snape" tries to tranform into Moody, but takes a hair from "Crouch!Moody", Are you saying he'll turn into "Crouch" or "Moody"? I think that you are saying he'll turn into "Moody", is that right. > However, if one assumes that you retain your own spirit during the > transformation then the homeopathic link will be to person B, > regardless of their outward appearance. This would also apply to > animagi, you would transform into the person, not the animal, no > matter what they looked like when the hair was obtained. In this scenario, I think that your explaination points to the link being to "Crouch", because he has retained his own spirit even though his appearance is that of "Moody", right? > I rather think that the second scenario is more likely as I tend to > associate something's "spirit" with their essence, or whatever, and > not their outward appearance. I think that this makes quite a bit of sense, but I think an argument can still be made for a link between "Snape" and "Moody". Although we know that the spirit of "Snape" will be retained, because all instances of polyjuice use show us that the person who is trasnformed still thinks as they would, not as the person who they transformed into would; I think of the hair (or whatever) as being a link to the the person in their Transformed state. I guess that's why I really like Corinth's theory: >Perhaps person C would turn into person A turned into person B. In >other words, they would take on the appearance of person B for the >remainder of person A's hour, and then turn "back" into person A for >the remainder of his or her own hour. After all, if Polyjuice Potion >is able to detect every aspect of a person's appearance from just one >hair, then it would probably be able to detect both the original and >tranformed characteristics of a person from the same hair. Well, I'm back to square one. I can understand both sides. (Which explains why I am a notoriously poor decision maker!) >-Corinth, who just discovered this group and is thrilled to learn >she is not the only person who obsesses over details of a fictional >universe. Welcome, Corinth! >James (who is vaguely worried that his use of the word "ass" in his >last post could get him into trouble, and hastens to point out he is >using it in the English sense - meaning donkey - and not the American >sense - meaning posterior. He genuinely does believe Lockheart is asinine though) Carrie-Ann (who has sent her head spinning with all of this, and would like to apologize in advance if her use of the fictional scenario of "snape" trying to become "Moody" through "Crouch!Moody" wasn't the correct way to go about things, but she couldn't think of another way!) From suzchiles at pobox.com Wed Jun 19 00:20:43 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 17:20:43 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Spying Game Part II - I want you to DIE, Mr Potter. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40046 I am in awe of your analysis; you've done a brilliant job. I would like to throw out one thing that I think may tie into this. Many have made a great deal about why didn't Voldemort use any old wizard's blood, yet Voldemort insisted on using Harry's blood for the potion. I believe he's used Harry's blood because Harry's blood carries much of what makes him powerful. In fact, I believe that the only reason Voldemort can touch Harry is because he used Harry's blood. Once again, brilliant analysis. And I agree that Order of the Phoenix is going to be a dark book. Zo From bard7696 at aol.com Tue Jun 18 22:45:10 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 22:45:10 -0000 Subject: Hagrid, the Betrayer? Don't think so... (WAS Re: The Betrayer?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40047 > But Joe Blackish argued, as pointing out Hagrid's "serious problems": > > <>PoA: The whole Buckbeak fiasco. He shouldn't have introduced > such a dangerous creature in the first class. He should have > noticed that Malfoy wasn't paying attention and should have been > more in control of the situation. He has all the kids going up to > play with a very dangerous creature at the same time.<> > And Aldrea (great name, by the way) wrote: > *coughs* Not to get all LOONish on you, but Hagrid did not have all > of the kids going up to dangerous creatures at -same- time. Harry > was the only one who trusted Hagrid enough to approach one of the > Hippogriffs, and therefore the rest of the class tentively steps up > and does what Hagrid tells them to do. Excuse me, MOST of the rest > of the class. Draco loses no time in disobeying Hagrid at his very > first teaching lesson by insulting the Hippogriff and causing the > exact effect Hagrid -warned- them against: an attack. Also, they're > being watched by a half-giant who would never let any of them be hurt > if he could help it. He even immediately pulls the hippogriff off > Draco, whom he doesn't even like, if I recall correctly. And once > more, they're in a -wizarding- school. I don't really see any of > them in danger as being maimed for life as Madame Pomfrey can mend > broken bones, burns, and cuts so that the person is good as new. > > And I don't see Draco faking a hurt arm as being a "serious" > or "major" problem. It was an annoyance to everyone that liked > Hagrid as a friend, and also resulted in Hermione b*tch slapping > Draco when he gloated over the annoyance he caused- which I still > laugh at every time I read. =P > And I write: So, basically, it's the teacher's fault that Malfoy completely ignored the instructions and did the exact opposite? Frankly, it's this attitude that creates little brats like Draco in the first place. "My son didn't do anything wrong! It must have been the teacher's fault!" The text also says that Draco, Crabbe and Goyle were looking for ways to disrupt the class. Harry spotted it and was unable to really do anything about it. > > Joe continued: > <>And then he's the worst teacher ever for the rest of the > year. The children learn absolutely nothing by feeding > flobberworms lettuce.<> He deserved to be canned.<> > And Aldrea wrote: > That, also, (IMO, I suppose) is Draco's fault. Hagrid completely lost > his confidence, he had wanted to make a fun class, so he tried > something exciting for his frist lesson- when Draco screwed that up, > he just went completely backwards. Exciting was too dangerous, he > should stick to boring and safeness. He stopped putting the kids > in "danger" when he went to flobberworms, and isn't that what you > accused him of doing in his first lesson? > > <>He deserved to be canned.<> > > Are you saying that he was canned, or just that he should be? > Because I don't recall him being canned. He is still their CoMC > Teacher in GoF, in which he tries to hand in his resignation but > Dumbledore, Harry, Ron, and Hermione wouldn't hear of it. As for him > deserving to be canned, that really is Dumbeldore's decision. > And I write: And furthermore, Dumbledore points out that he had gotten lots of owls from alumnus and parents, saying they would be furious is Hagrid was let go after the half-giant story broke. I've said that Hagrid could end up being the unintentional betrayer in this coming battle, but I also believe he will end up heroic -- perhaps dying a heroic death. More than any other adult in Harry's world, I don't expect Hagrid to be alive at the end of Book 7. > ~Aldrea (I think Hagrid deserves an acronym supporting him. Even > Snape has one[actually, I think there are several], for crying out > loud! =P) I'm on the case! SAVE HAGRID FROM COMPLETE DISRESPECT! Should Albus and Voldemort Epic Hurtle Against Goodness, Remember: Indomitable Determination From Rubeus and Olympe May Contribute Outstandingly to Master Potter's Lasting Efforts To Eliminate Darkness. Indeed, Stalwart Rubeus' Enormous Strength and Power Ends Conflict Totally! Darrin -- I don't hzve a job. I just sit in the dark, coming up with acronyms. From meboriqua at aol.com Wed Jun 19 00:45:06 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 00:45:06 -0000 Subject: Hagrid, the one who can't handle his job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40048 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "aldrea279" wrote: > Hagrid completely lost his confidence, he had wanted to make a fun class, so he tried something exciting for his frist lesson- when Draco screwed that up, he just went completely backwards. Exciting was too dangerous, he should stick to boring and safeness. He stopped putting the kids in "danger" when he went to flobberworms [snip[> That is exactly the problem, IMO. If I was a parent of a Hogwarts student, I certainly would not want my child to study the same unchallenging thing every day for most of the term. *As* a teacher, I would suffer serious consequences if I taught the way Hagrid did in PoA. If he lost his confidence, he should turn in his curriculum and let someone else do the teaching. If I lost my confidence every time I had a run-in with a student, I would have been fired a few weeks into my first teaching position - and I would have deserved it. > He can be counted on by anyone who ever needs a friend> A number of members here have mentioned that one of Hagrid's problems is that, even though he is an adult, he is not quite as developed as one. I agree and see that as a serious flaw in Hagrid's character. Because of this, I don't see him as a particularly good friend. Hagrid seems far more often to depend on Harry, Ron and Hermione to help him out and talk him through problems than the other way around. Aside from the Norbert incident in SS, Harry and Co. have listened to Hagrid blubber in PoA and helped talk him into facing Hogwarts after Rita Skeeter's article was printed. Once again, if my students had to constantly give *me* support and advice, my principal and assistant principal would encourage me to transfer to another school. As for the drinking, I know there are many different opinions about what constitutes too much and how alcohol consumption is seen a bit differently in Europe than here in the US. Here's what I think: the fact that the Trio even *once* helped sober up Hagrid is too much. I'm not even a parent (but may be one some day) but I keep thinking about if my child told me about the drunk groundskeeper and how he had to have his face stuffed in a barrel of water to clear his head. Is there any parent on this list who would want a staff member like that being given another chance at your child's school? > ~Aldrea (I think Hagrid deserves an acronym supporting him. Even > Snape has one[actually, I think there are several], for crying out > loud! =P)> How about an acronym for those few of us who *don't* like or trust Hagrid? --jenny from ravenclaw, whose mom also doesn't like Hagrid - so there! ************************************ From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Jun 19 02:11:54 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 21:11:54 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Spying Game Part II - I want you to DIE, Mr Potter. References: Message-ID: <014a01c21736$afa38fc0$da9dcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 40049 From: Suzanne Chiles > I would like to throw out one thing that I think may tie into this. Many > have made a great deal about why didn't Voldemort use any old wizard's > blood, yet Voldemort insisted on using Harry's blood for the potion. I > believe he's used Harry's blood because Harry's blood carries much of what > makes him powerful. In fact, I believe that the only reason Voldemort can > touch Harry is because he used Harry's blood. This may be an incredibly stupid question, however, I'll ask it anyway, to get it out of my system if nothing else. What exactly do we know about the potion that Voldemort used to resurrect himself? Is this listed in potion books for anyone to look up? Do vapours/ugly baby creatures often resurrect themselves using this potion? If not, how does Voldemort know about this? If so, why wasn't the elder Riddle's tomb more closely guarded? Or bones removed entirely? If, however, this is something Voldemort "thought up" himself, could he have needed Harry's blood for another reason? A reason, say, he didn't want even his followers to know about? Is this possible? Or has my imagination gotten carried away? Richelle From skelkins at attbi.com Wed Jun 19 02:40:58 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 02:40:58 -0000 Subject: The Spying Game Part II - I want you to DIE, Mr Potter. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40050 Oh, brava! This was even better than the first part. (And of course, I was just thrilled to see that my boy Redeemable!Avery remains dishwasher-safe.) I do have one tiny quibble, though, that perhaps Pip or her, er, enforcer Grey Wolf might be able to...um, help me out a bit with here. Preferably without recourse to Cruciatus. Pip wrote, after an impassioned defense of the notion that many of the DEs in that graveyard hadn't really been disloyal to Voldemort at all: > Another, final point on the supposedly disloyal DE's. > Voldemort: "... I had given up hope, now, that any of my Death > Eaters cared what had become of me." > 'One or two of the masked wizards in the circle moved > uncomfortably, ..' > Only one or two? Thus implying that only those "one or two" of the Death Eaters had really been disloyal at all. Erm. Um. The problem here is that, well, there are just far too many indications elsewhere in the scene that the majority of these guys really are profoundly uncomfortable in that graveyard. The behavior of the entire group when they first appear, for example: "And one by one they moved forward...slowly, cautiously, as though they could hardly believe their eyes." Then they all shudder as one when Voldemort looks around at them. And then, when Voldemort sniffs at them and declares that he smells guilt: "A second shiver ran around the circle, as though each member of it longed, but did not dare, to step back from him." They surely can't *all* be great actors just doing their bit to help feed Harry misinformation, can they? I am willing to entertain the notion that Lucius Malfoy may be in on the Big Plan (if only because imagining his stammering there as evidence that he had forgotten his *lines* made me laugh so hard that my housemate ran into the room asking "What? WHAT?"), but I'm afraid that I'm just not quite up for a plateful of "all but one or two of the DEs were loyal." There's just far too much canon opposing that one. But that's okay, right? Voldemort can have just a couple of loyalists, while the rest of them can still be treacherous disloyal slime, right? -- Elkins From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Wed Jun 19 04:11:01 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 04:11:01 -0000 Subject: His Parseltongue (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40051 His Parseltongue (from GoF, Chap. 31) (To the tune of Forever Young) Dedicated to Pippin Hear the original at: http://www.foxlink.net/~bobnbren/1980s.html#F SCENE: The Great Hall. As Harry enters, DRACO (accompanied by CRABBE & GOYLE) mockingly reads aloud Rita Skeeter's slanderous article from The Daily Prophet. DRACO "So, the Dark Lord attacked him, his mind ain't been right since. His closest of companions are werewolves and fierce giants. And he is growing more weird, don't deny it's true! `Cause this reporter will give you her own first-hand view DRACO, (CRABBE & GOYLE) "He's unstable and deranged And the thing that makes him strange: His Parseltongue (His Parseltongue) His Parseltongue (His Parseltongue) DRACO "Horrid serpents speak to him, he set them against his peers Walk a hallway with Potter, you see him fill each heart with fear DRACO, (CRABBE & GOYLE) "And he screams that his scar's in pain Mungo experts say he's insane >From Parseltongue (From Parseltongue) >From Parseltongue (From Parseltongue) ALL "His Parseltongue His Parseltongue Yeah! DRACO "The Dark Force Defense League says that boy they will interrogate well But in the third task of the Tourney, will he win with Dark spells? DRACO, (CRABBE & GOYLE) "It's outrageous he's still loose Can Dumbledore dare to excuse This Parseltongue (This Parseltongue)? This Parseltongue (This Parseltongue)? ALL This Parseltongue! This Parseltongue! This this Parseltongue! This Parseltongue! The Slytherin Trio dissolve in laughter, as Harry disdainfully ignores them, while directing Ron & Hermione to do likewise - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From ntg85 at prodigy.net Wed Jun 19 01:13:11 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 01:13:11 -0000 Subject: Filch and Names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40052 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "evilgeniussmurf" wrote: > While browsing through a site about British slang, I found out > that "filch" is UK slang for stealing. This got me wondering about > the background of JKR's Filch. Could he have been a thief? And if he > was, how did he end up at Hogwarts? > ~E.G. Smurf, who will now return to lurkdom JKR has a neat way of using words that invoke particular feelings. When I first read the name "Filch,", I thought of a mean old man, just because of the word's negative connotation. Likewise, when I read the name "Weasley" (and I think this is a new one), I thought, from the word and the descriptions I had already read, of "measley." The Weasleys come from a poor background, don't have many material things, and are looked down upon by others. Of course, my perception changed as I read, but still, I just see him as so much of a Sidekick character... Hermione is a long, complicated name that I didn't even know how to pronounce until a few months ago. I got the impression that she was a bookish, pretentious, know-it-all sort. Harry Potter is a combination of two common names, indicating how much of a normal kid he is at the beginning of the books. (Yes, he does live in an abusive situation, but it's not really anything that you wouldn't read about in the newspaper. Not that child abuse is good, or should be usual. But it's not unheard of. Oh, bugger...) He is just another kid trying to get along in the world, who is suddenly thrust into a completely strange situation and forced to cope. One could even argue that the name "Harry Potter" was meant to be a name of someone whom everyone could relate to, to draw the reader in and make them feel part of the story... Incidentally, does anyone know if Harry has a middle name? The Random Monkey, who is starting to wonder if JKR's stories aren't flinted up because she spent too long on names... From ntg85 at prodigy.net Wed Jun 19 01:24:42 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 01:24:42 -0000 Subject: Lethal Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40053 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > > > Manda wrote: > >(I can probably can find a way to use any spell to have > > dangerous consecuences to a human being, but not all of them could > be > > applied to the shack scene) > > I want to know how to kill someone using Lumos! Yeah! Darrin wrote: > ON THE OTHER HAND... we know that Harry has sometimes done powerful > things without realizing it. > > He has: > > Essentially apparated to the top of his school roof when bullies were > chasing him. Remember, apparation is so tricky a spell that Hogwarts > students aren't allowed to practice it until after graduation, and > then only with a license. SS/PS > > Caused a human being to inflate -- like the expanding tongue, another > seemingly amusing spell that could be dangerous. PoA > > Made thick glass disappear completely (freeing the snake in the zoo) > SS/PS > > And he did these all when he was scared or angry. > > Is it possible that Harry could have spontaneously used AK, simply > because he wanted to? I think it wasn't so much that Harry was using specific spells as that he was making what he wanted happen. He wanted to free the snake; he wanted to get Tia Marge to shut up; he wanted to get away from the bullies. (Didn't he also break a glass once?) Anyway, Harry didn't even know those things were possible, let alone what spell to use. I think it was, as Hagrid said, "making things happen" (and from the fact that Hagrid says it as if it happens to everyone indicates it may not be an isolated phenomenon... Remember, Neville bounced). I always thought that Harry was more posturing than anything when he threatened Sirius. It's the same thing as people who are fighting going, "I'm gonna kill you!" even though they have no intention of doing so. The Random Monkey, who is completely geeked to have her own acronym (thanks, Darrin!) From ntg85 at prodigy.net Wed Jun 19 02:04:43 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 02:04:43 -0000 Subject: Why is AK unforgiveable was Re: Lethal Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40054 Heidi: Unless, as I suspect, the true > reason AK is unforgivable - not because it causes death, but > because it takes the soul and instead of setting it free for the next > great adventure, captures it in the caster's wand in perpetuity. > > Pippin: > I think it's unforgiveable because it's a spell that can *only* be > done with murderous intent and has no use other than killing. I was under the impression that it was unforgiveable because there was no way to stop it (or at least, very few ways...) AK can only be done by a very powerful wizard. It can kill anyone, muggle or wizard, and no matter how powerful. There is no counter curse. Most people wouldn't even see it coming. Like Pippin said, the only reason it's used is to kill. It is the WW equivalent of shooting someone in their sleep. Cruciatus is equally unstoppable. It is torture, pure and simple. It is a curse for no reason more than pain. It can drive someone insane, as per the Longbottoms. Imperius can be thrown off, but this is apparently a very rare skill that requires a strong mind. It violates someone, takes their will away from them. Incidentally, if Imperius is unforgiveable, why did Crouch Sr. use it? Would he have been thrown in jail if Junior hadn't been kissed? Rosie: > If someone did Priori Incantatem on Voldemort's wand again, now that >the hand, Harry's parents etc have been "freed"... would the same >things come out again? Or has it "done" those ones now, and would >have to start from before the ones that came out? Even more intriguing: Would Priori Incantem come out? If so, how? Shadows of shadows? Then again, weren't some of the spells not spit out (ex. Harry's AK)? The Random Monkey, who is set all aquiver by the words, "Mr. Mooney" From lav at tut.by Wed Jun 19 04:31:00 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 07:31:00 +0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Spying Game Part II - I want you to DIE, Mr Potter. Message-ID: <1597807979.20020619073100@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 40055 Greetings! > "bluesqueak" wrote to us > about this "Spying Game" theories. Indeed, an excellent work. Actually, I have always been a fan of the idea that Dumbledore-Voldemort war was waged mostly by spies and agents, and I liked your work a lot. > It's far more likely that this inability of other Wizards > to hit Harry is a defensive spell Harry doesn't yet > realise he's casting. The number of times the spells are > described as hitting something else instead suggests that > it may well be an ability to deflect spells - make them go > over your head, around you, or to hit something else which > will absorb some of their power. It's not a purely > defensive 'bounce off' shield, or Ron and Hermione would > have been hit in the QWC. An excellent observation. Several months ago I nurtured the idea that "since spells can be dodged, the best DADA teacher is a martial arts sensei". Now, if it is only Harry who is actively dodging the spells, my theory needs certain re-examination. However I must still defend my theory (I don't give up that easy ;). After all, though Harry did dodge spells a lot, *did it surprise anybody*? No. Can someone remember a case when some other wizard dodging a spell? Maybe. I can't at the moment, but I will try to find such examples, or maybe somebody else on the List will provide them. > That Harry turns out to be so powerful he can't be killed, > can't be beaten to his knees, and Voldemort himself is > stuck in a fight that can only end in him either running > (bad) or being killed (worse). > However, if Harry himself is convinced he's going to be > killed by Voldemort, he would probably grab the first > available chance of escape. It would be relatively easy to > 'let' him run; then to cry out something along the lines > of 'Stun him, you fools! Don't let him near the Cup!' Maybe, maybe. I appreciate your work, but... *** If "Spying Games" theory is true, then Voldemort had made a BIG mistake *** A mistake I had never forgiven to my enemies (in games, of course ;). He has put a lot of effort into organization of this duel. Everything was properly planned, Harry was stripped of all those who could help him. Harry was weakened. Harry was handled the most inappropriate weapon possible. In this situation batte had to go to the end. Duel At The Graveyard is not the last battle of the War Between HP and TMR/V. But it is the decisive battle. For Voldemort, failure to kill Harry means losing the war. From now on, he can only hope for a miracle. I know there are not many military history specialists here, so I will repeat this once again: no matter your chances, decisive battle must be fought to the end. I refuse to accept the idea that climax of the story is in Book 7. From my (military history fan) point of view, climax of the series is the Graveyard Scene. Harry demonstrated that Voldemort *already* cannot kill him. Even though Harry was weakened and softened and handled the most inappropriate weapon. With every day passing, situation will only become worse for Voldemort. There is no way of reversing that. *Never* again he will have the chances he had at the graveyard. If he did put maximum effort into killing Harry, he would have chances to succeed. Even if majority of his DE's were lying sprawled on the battlefield and Voldemort himself was battered almost to the death, he would still have chances. Now, when Harry had survived and restored his confidence, Voldemort's chances are much worse than they could be. Even if Harry would prove to be stronger than Voldemort and all his DE's combined, fight had to be to the end. The only thing they would lose is 3 years of life. Voldemort has accepted the possibility of defeat from the beginning. That was defeat itself already. In military history there's no example of a country that won a war after losing the decisive battle, no matter how minor (or major) that battle would seem. Japan lost the Battle at Midway. Japanese admirals refused to send remaining battleships to win or die. All battleships that survived at Midway were destroyed in the following years - with no positive result *at all*. In 1904, Russian fleet lost the Battle at Port-Arthur. That was not a spectacular battle (unlike Tsusima), and Russian fleet took no losses at all, just retreated back into the port. But it was the decisive battle - and Russia lost the Russo-Japanese war. In 1995, Voldemort failed to kill Harry. In 1998, we will see Voldemort brought down, his DE's, dementors and giants scattered and annihilated. He will be *finished* in 1998, but he was *defeated* in 1995 - on the small graveyard near the village of Little Gangleton. And one more thought for future consideration: was it really Voldemort who arranged the Cup to be a portkey *back* to the Hogwarts? Are you sure it was not Dumbledore? Or (grin) Snape? Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, always happy to throw weird ideas into community. Wednesday, June 19, 2002, 7:00 local time (GMT+2:00) From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Wed Jun 19 12:31:10 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:31:10 -0000 Subject: Spying Game Part II / Magic Dishwasher Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40056 Elkins writes: > I do have one tiny quibble, though, that perhaps Pip or her, er, > enforcer Grey Wolf might be able to...um, help me out a bit with > here. Preferably without recourse to Cruciatus. > Pip wrote, after an impassioned defense of the notion that many > of the DEs in that graveyard hadn't really been disloyal to > Voldemort at all: > > Another, final point on the supposedly disloyal DE's. > > Voldemort: "... I had given up hope, now, that any of my Death > > Eaters cared what had become of me." > > 'One or two of the masked wizards in the circle moved > > uncomfortably, ..' > > Only one or two? > Thus implying that only those "one or two" of the Death Eaters had > really been disloyal at all. > Erm. Um. The problem here is that, well, there are just far too > many indications elsewhere in the scene that the majority of these > guys really are profoundly uncomfortable in that graveyard. > The behavior of the entire group when they first appear, for > example: > "And one by one they moved forward...slowly, cautiously, as > though they could hardly believe their eyes." > Then they all shudder as one when Voldemort looks around at them. > And then, when Voldemort sniffs at them and declares that he smells > guilt: > "A second shiver ran around the circle, as though each member of > it longed, but did not dare, to step back from him." > They surely can't *all* be great actors just doing their bit to > help feed Harry misinformation, can they? I think they may well be nervous when they come face to face with Voldemort in the graveyard. The fact that they are 'basically loyal to Voldemort and did work for him in the Stalemate' is probably not the same thing at all as 'having a completely clear concience that everything done in the Stalemate was something Voldemort would have approved of.' My mental image to date of the Death Eaters is of an organisation with the same 'pack of hyenas' feel as the inner circle of the Nazi Party during the Hitler Era. While basically loyal to their dear leader, the jockeying for position included trying to downgrade all the other Inner Circle. Occasionally the power struggle ended with the loser getting executed. It probably didn't make for calm repose when the Leader announces he's going to make examples of some of the 'disloyalists' - YOU may know you're loyal, but suppose Malfoy wants to get rid of you, and has planted doubts in Voldemort's mind... > I am willing to entertain the notion that Lucius Malfoy may be in > on the Big Plan(if only because imagining his stammering there as > evidence that he had forgotten his *lines* made me laugh so hard > that my housemate ran into the room asking "What? WHAT?"), but I'm > afraid that I'm just not quite up for a plateful of "all but one or > two of the DEs were loyal." There's just far too much canon > opposing that one. > But that's okay, right? Voldemort can have just a couple of > loyalists, while the rest of them can still be treacherous disloyal > slime, right? My definite loyalists would include Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle (whose sons are Draco's 'bodyguards', implying the fathers are remaining loyal), MacNair (who practically gets a pat on the head from Voldemort, and helped Malfoy out with the Buckbeak incident), *possibly* Nott (who has a tendency to sycophancy), and of course the Lestranges in Azkaban (we hope they're in Azkaban, anyway). Beyond that, I'm open to argument about the exact numbers of the 'loyalists' versus the 'treacherous disloyal slime'. It may be more of a difference between 'completely trusted during the Stalemate' and 'not completely trusted, so any attempts to hint we might try to find Voldemort during the Stalemate were slapped down by the Inner Circle. So you don't get a Crucio, but Voldemort is watching you...' ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Richelle writes: > This may be an incredibly stupid question, however, I'll ask it > anyway, to get it out of my system if nothing else. What exactly do > we know about the potion that Voldemort used to resurrect himself? > Is this listed in potion books for anyone to look up? Do > vapours/ugly baby creatures often resurrect > themselves using this potion? If not, how does Voldemort know about > this? > If so, why wasn't the elder Riddle's tomb more closely guarded? Or > bones removed entirely? If, however, this is something > Voldemort "thought up" himself, could he have needed Harry's blood > for another reason? A reason,say, he didn't want even his followers > to know about? Is this possible? Or has my imagination gotten > carried away? Not a stupid question at all, and in the 100 or so posts about the Magic Dishwasher theory it's hardly surprising you missed some of the answers. All we know about the potion is what's given in GoF. I have no idea (not having a copy of, say, 'Evene Moore Potente Potions' to hand [grin]) whether the instructions include things like 'ingredients must be absolutely FRESH', or 'best performed in a graveyard' - but Voldemort describes it as: "an old piece of Dark Magic, the potion that revived me tonight " (GoF p.569) So it's not a Voldemort invention; but a potion whose instructions must be in SOME book, or scroll, or something that could be accessible to *both* Voldemort, and Snape the Potions Master. The crux of the Magic Dishwasher theory is that both sides know about this potion. Another point in the Magic Dishwasher theory (see # 39662 for the original post, and # 39854 for Grey Wolf's excellent summary of arguments and counterarguments in the discussion) is that Dumbledore WANTS Voldemort to resurrect using the potion, because Snape the Potions Master has discovered a flaw which could help Harry destroy Voldemort for ever... This is why the Riddle graveyard wasn't guarded, or the Riddle bones respectfully removed to an top-secret-and-equally-consecrated destination. ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Alexander writes: > *** If "Spying Games" theory is true, then Voldemort had made a BIG > mistake *** > A mistake I had never forgiven to my enemies (in games, of > course ;). > He has put a lot of effort into organization of this duel. > Everything was properly planned, Harry was stripped of all those > who could help him. Harry was > weakened. Harry was handled the > most inappropriate weapon possible. > In this situation battle had to go to the end. You might well end up being absolutely right. But isn't it a key point in military strategies that 'wars are not won by the side who makes no mistakes; because all sides always make mistakes. Wars are won by the side who makes the LEAST mistakes.' [grin] I would argue against Voldemort believing that THIS was the decisive battle that has to go to an end. He's just resurrected, he has his human body back, but he's had to pay a price for that. "I was willing to embrace mortal life again, before chasing immortal. I set my sights lower..." (Voldemort, GoF p. 569) So he's got his body back, but has lost his 'cannot be killed' quality. He has researched immortality extensively, and believes that, given time, he can get it back. In short, given time, he can become even stronger, he may be able to negotiate with Giants, Dementors etc and gain powerful allies. So if he has to make a strategic withdrawal from this battle, he probably feels some consolidation will then allow him to make an even stronger attack later. This is not a 'Fight to the end' situation (In Voldemort's view). It's an 'allow yourself a line of retreat situation' - which the majority of battles are. Truly decisive battles are very rare. Hitler's Luftwaffe probably made exactly the same mistake when they decided that the Battle of Britain/Invasion of Britain didn't have to be fought to the end, and that they could afford to retreat and leave an isolated Britain to stew. In hindsight, that mistake was one of the decisive mistakes of WW2 - only surpassed in stupidity by the other decisive mistake of deciding to invade Russia. Pip From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Jun 19 12:35:50 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:35:50 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables/Harry's middle name In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40057 The Random Monkey, who is set all aquiver by the words "Mr. Mooney", wrote: > Pippin: > > I think it's unforgiveable because it's a spell that can *only* be > > done with murderous intent and has no use other than killing. > > I was under the impression that it was unforgiveable because there > was no way to stop it (or at least, very few ways...) AK can only be > done by a very powerful wizard. It can kill anyone, muggle or wizard, > and no matter how powerful. There is no counter curse. Most people > wouldn't even see it coming. Like Pippin said, the only reason it's > used is to kill. It is the WW equivalent of shooting someone in their > sleep. My impression from the books is that unforgivables is a legal definition of those curses for which no magical shield exists. We know such shields do exist against some curses (Harry practices them with Hermione and Ron in GoF), but from the description of Unforgivable of Crouch!Moody, it seems that the three unforgivables are unstopable (note that this doesn't mean that they're impossible to defend form them: you can dodge them or throw them off, in the case of Imperious, but there is no magical way -except Harry's- to stop them from affecting you). > Incidentally, if Imperius is unforgiveable, why did Crouch Sr. use > it? Would he have been thrown in jail if Junior hadn't been kissed? He should, but being dead probably counts as a defence... Anyway, he had passed laws that allowed the use of unforgivables against DEs, so maybe he could have wriggled his way through that, but the spirit of the law tells us that he should have gone to Azkaban with life sentence, for using an unforgivable against a human being. > Even more intriguing: Would Priori Incantem come out? If so, how? > Shadows of shadows? Then again, weren't some of the spells not spit > out (ex. Harry's AK)? Not all of the spells have shadows of their own. I believe that priori incantem wouldn't show, but my guess is as good as yours, since there is no canon about it. On the other hand, Harry's AK doesn't show up because there is nothing to show: Harry's soul is still within his body, and so's Voldemort (if you can call the Vapuor form a soul...), so how would the wand now what to show? > Incidentally, does anyone know if Harry has a middle name? > > The Random Monkey, who is starting to wonder if JKR's stories aren't > flinted up because she spent too long on names... IIRC, JKR stated in an interview (check the goat's webpage if you want the hard canon) that Harry's middle name was "James, of course". Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From bard7696 at aol.com Wed Jun 19 13:04:45 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:04:45 -0000 Subject: Lethal Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40058 Darrin wrote: > > > > Is it possible that Harry could have spontaneously used AK, simply > > because he wanted to? > And Random Monkey wrote: > I think it wasn't so much that Harry was using specific spells as that > he was making what he wanted happen. He wanted to free the snake; he > wanted to get Tia Marge to shut up; he wanted to get away from the > bullies. (Didn't he also break a glass once?) Anyway, Harry didn't > even know those things were possible, let alone what spell to use. I > think it was, as Hagrid said, "making things happen" (and from the > fact that Hagrid says it as if it happens to everyone indicates it may > not be an isolated phenomenon... Remember, Neville bounced). > > I always thought that Harry was more posturing than anything when he > threatened Sirius. It's the same thing as people who are fighting > going, "I'm gonna kill you!" even though they have no intention of > doing so. > And Darrin writes again: OK, re-reading PoA -- I can't get any definitive answers here: Page 341, hardcover: Harry's wand was pointed straight at Black's heart. "Going to kill me, Harry?" he (Black) whispered. OK, I can't tell from that if Black is fearful or condescending. Page 342, Harry is perfectly prepared to TRY to kill Black (and Crookshanks too) and Hermione, for one, thinks he can, because she "gives a dry sob" over Crookshanks. Page 343, Lupin comes in -- I was wrong earlier -- Lupin COULD NOT have stopped Harry from killing Black, and promptly disarms everyone in the room, stopping Harry. So from Black's reaction, I can't tell if he was scared of Harry really killing him, or just being properly cautious. Perhaps just having a wand pointed at you with murderous intentions is enough to give pause. >From Hermione's reaction, she seems to really believe Harry can do it, but for all of Hermione's smarts, she doesn't know about AK at this point. >From Lupin's reaction, he has obviously decided it's better for everyone but him to be wand-less while they talk it all out. But that doesn't mean Harry could have killed Sirius. My conclusion: Harry could have done some serious damage to Black. Lupin wasn't there. Ron had a broken leg, and Hermione -- a wild card in this, might have stopped him, but might have been too petrified with fear at this point. Could he have killed him? Honestly, I don't know. BUT, for purposes of the story, the fact that he wanted to, and didn't, is probably enough to further establish what kind of young man he is. > The Random Monkey, who is completely geeked to have her own acronym > (thanks, Darrin!) Anytime, luv. Darrin -- Wearing black today in honor of St. Louis Cardinals broadcaster Jack Buck. Pardon us, Jack, while we stand and applaud your life. From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Jun 19 13:21:40 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:21:40 -0000 Subject: The Spying Game Part II - I want you to DIE, Mr Potter. In-Reply-To: <1597807979.20020619073100@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40059 Alexander wrote, on thew spying theory (aka MAGIC DISHWASHER): > Indeed, an excellent work. Actually, I have always been a > fan of the idea that Dumbledore-Voldemort war was waged > mostly by spies and agents, and I liked your work a lot. Can we count you in as a convinced listee, then? The theory fits and, if you're the same kind of war fan I am (which looks probable, by reading your post), I'm sure you'll love all its ramifications. > *** If "Spying Games" theory is true, then Voldemort had > made a BIG mistake *** > > Duel At The Graveyard is not the last battle of the War > Between HP and TMR/V. But it is the decisive battle. For > Voldemort, failure to kill Harry means losing the war. From > now on, he can only hope for a miracle. > > > > In 1995, Voldemort failed to kill Harry. In 1998, we will > see Voldemort brought down, his DE's, dementors and giants > scattered and annihilated. He will be *finished* in 1998, > but he was *defeated* in 1995 - on the small graveyard near > the village of Little Gangleton. >From a purely military point of view, your reasoning and theory is probably correct. I believe that the Graveyard scene is possibly one of the turnovers of the series (it fits metathinking too, since it's in the *middle* of the series, but metathnking is not fair play). There are two things I want to point out, though: most of the decisive battles were not identified as such until *after* the war, when historians could examine all the evidence and point out: "there they should have commited their forces. They didn't, thus, they lost. It was the decisive battle, and they didn't see it." The trouble, when you're in a war, is identifying the battle as decisive. Yes, Voldemort probably made a mistake at not managing to kill Harry, but it is not as terrible a mistake as it wuld be in a muggle war, because there is another objective in Voldemort's mind: inmortality. If Voldemort manages to find a way into inmortality before Dumbledore can destroy him, battles will mean nothing, because he cannot be defeaten. He will keep reviving until he wins. From behind the perfect defense, you only have to wait until your enemy makes a mistake, and (from an infinite lenght of time point of view) that mistake, sooner or later, will be made. > And one more thought for future consideration: was it > really Voldemort who arranged the Cup to be a portkey *back* > to the Hogwarts? Are you sure it was not Dumbledore? Or > (grin) Snape? > > Sincerely yours, > Alexander Lomski, > Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, > always happy to throw weird ideas into community. The trouble with that idea is that neither Dumbledore nor Snape knew that the porkey!cup plan existed. They both believed that Harry was safe while in Hogwarts. Thus, they couldn't have tricked the cup do that it was two-ways. The other possibility is that the cup was altready enchanted as a portkey, to get whomever touched it to the entrance of the maze, and Crouch!Moody, being uncapable of destroying that enchantment, simply put one before it: the one that sends you to the graveyard. -------------------------- Z?e said: > I would like to throw out one thing that I think may tie into this. > Many have made a great deal about why didn't Voldemort use any old > wizard's blood, yet Voldemort insisted on using Harry's blood for the > potion. I believe he's used Harry's blood because Harry's blood > carries much of what makes him powerful. In fact, I believe that the > only reason Voldemort can touch Harry is because he used Harry's > blood. > > Zo? I would normally agree with that, but thinking over the descriptions of Harry's reactions on PS and GoF, I have to agree with Pip's basis that Voldemort maybe still feels pain at touching Harry, but that, now having his own body, he can pretend he can touch him. It had naver really made sense that Harry still feels the pain of having Voldemort close and that he doesn't. The important thing, though, it what *he* believes, which is that he is now protected in the same way Harry is (whatever that protection may be). If that is true or it's just Dumbledore's work of misinformation, we'll have to wait and see. I'd go for the second option, though (but only through metathinking, and that is not fair play). -------------------------- Richelle asked: > This may be an incredibly stupid question, however, I'll ask it > anyway, to get it out of my system if nothing else. What exactly do > we know about the potion that Voldemort used to resurrect himself? > Is this listed in potion books for anyone to look up? Do vapours/ > ugly baby creatures often resurrect themselves using this potion? If > not, how does Voldemort know about this? If so, why wasn't the elder > Riddle's tomb more closely guarded? Or bones removed entirely? If, > however, this is something Voldemort "thought up" himself, could he > have needed Harry's blood for another reason? A reason, say, he > didn't want even his followers to know about? Is this possible? Or > has my imagination gotten carried away? > > Richelle The short answer is: we know almost NOTHING of the potion (only that gives you a mortal body). However, many listees know that I hate short answers, so I'm going for the long one. There are things we can deduct from what has been said. For example, it's doubtful that Voldemort thought it up, since he is neither a potion master nor is the potion included in his field of study. He spent his life looking for inmortality methods, and the potion is a way to become mortal (basically, to get a new body). The potion looks like a dark art, judging from it's components (ghoulish behaviour and enemy's blood and *servant's* -not friends- flesh), but it's still not the sort of thing Voldemort would've created. So, what is it used for, then? I'd imagine that in the dim past, it was created by wizards who wanted to have a quick way of curing themselves. if they've been badly hurt in a duel, for example, and half his head is missing, including an eye, and part of his leg, etc (picture Moody), they could use the potion to get a brand new body, and be back to the fray inmediately. Your last question implies that Voldemort needed Harry's blood for some other reason besides the potion. I find that unlikely, since he used it all in the potion. If he had wanted, he could've told Peter to keep some for later use. He didn't have to explain, just order, but he didn't. For the rest of the questions, I'm falling back into the FAQ of MAGIC DISHWASHER (see posts #39662 and #39854 for the longest versions). This theory, which has grown to envelope almost all the unknowns of HP (with diverse grades of plausibility) tells us that some of the DEs, maybe Snape himself, being the expert in potions of the DEs, discovered the potion and told Voldemort about it but, being a potion that did the exact opposite of what Voldemort wanted, he just filed away the info until he once again needed it: after the PS fiasco. Dumbledore knew about it too, but knew even more: that it was *flawed* (for example, that it shouldn't be used with the flesh of someone with a life debt). I suggested that maybe the formula can be found in the restricted section of Hogwarts (where Dumbledore read about it), and in some other liberies, which Voldemort must have visited in his almost futile search for inmortality. Now, why did they bones stay where they were buried if Dumbledore knew about the potion? Well, the important thing is that the potion is flawed. There are other ways to achive Voldemorts objective of inmortality, some of which are *not* flawed, and Dumbledore didn't want Voldemort to use one of those, so he made things as easy as he could so V would use the *wrong* method: the potion. (I've gone through this several times already, Richelle, so I'm not going into more detail. Please read the posts I mentioned above. To everyone who already has heard me say this three or so times, sorry). -------------------------- On Pip's coment: > 'One or two of the masked wizards in the circle moved > uncomfortably, ..' > > Only one or two? Elkins stated: > Thus implying that only those "one or two" of the Death Eaters > had really been disloyal at all. > > Erm. Um. The problem here is that, well, there are just far > too many indications elsewhere in the scene that the majority of > these guys really are profoundly uncomfortable in that graveyard. > > They surely can't *all* be great actors just doing their bit to help > feed Harry misinformation, can they? No, point accepted, they cannot be *all* acting. However, haven't you ever heard someone call you (my father, in my case), and go to see what he/she wants while thinking "What have I done *now*?". Guilt is not only a particular case nor it's just a sign of guilty consciense. The DEs feared being found guilty of something, maybe something they couldn't remeber, or maybe just of running away from the Dark Mark in the sky, for which maybe Voldemort would be willing to give out a few Cruciatus. Anyway, we're talking of Lord of Terror Voldemort. The entire scene, including background in a graveyard, was destinied to get his DEs back in line (as well as other objectives. He's multitasking, as pip said). Voldemort need respect, and since he's not lovable, the other only way to gain it is through fear. And he makes a good show. I imagine he knew he wasn't particularly amazing when he contacted a few of his most loyal DEs in his ugly baby form, and he needs to inspire fear into their hearts. > I am willing to entertain the notion that Lucius Malfoy may be in on > the Big Plan (if only because imagining his stammering there as > evidence that he had forgotten his *lines* made me laugh so hard that > my housemate ran into the room asking "What? WHAT?"), but I'm afraid > that I'm just not quite up for a plateful of "all but one or two of > the DEs were loyal." There's just far too much canon opposing that > one. > > But that's okay, right? Voldemort can have just a couple of > loyalists, while the rest of them can still be treacherous disloyal > slime, right? > > -- Elkins In this case, your guess is as good as mine. Pip's theory needs a few loyal DEs (in fact, things would possibly work with just Malfoy), but there is no canon in favor or against. Voldemort's particular acusation of not looking for him, though, is not to be taken seriously: They were all being watched, and they wouldn't want to take spies to Voldemort, and he wouldn't want it either. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From Edblanning at aol.com Wed Jun 19 13:46:23 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 09:46:23 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Immortal vapour? MAGIC DISHWASHER Message-ID: <98.27969839.2a41e52f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40060 Grey Wolf: > Eloise wrote: > > How did I know that the magical kitchen appliance was going to be > > rolled out? That's very much what I was saying in the part you > > snipped, except that I was suggesting he could be controlled by the > > Light side. Grey Wolf: Of course MAGIC DISHWASHER was coming out. It's the definitive theory. > The one that explains it all. Convert or thu shalt taste the bitterness > of defeat!!! j/k. ;-) Eloise: That's *exactly* how to ensure that I don't! I don't like doing things just because I'm told to! ;-) Grey Wolf: > > Appart from the ethical/moral problems (for the light side) of > controlling a debilitated being, you may see that I covered my back > against that by suggesting that you need *dark* magic to control him. > It stands to reason, anyway: it would probably be a version of the > Imperious, if not the Imperious itself. In his debilitated state, > Voldemort would take forever to fight it off, and he doesn't want to > wait that long. Eloise: I don't really see that this is something we need to argue over. :-) But since you mention it.......... Ethical/moral problems? This is the WW we're talking about here, the WW that uses soul-sucking Dementors as the ultimate deterrent, that imprisons without trial, that lets DEs walk free if they are useful as spies, that even lets people off punishment if they happen to have been successful Beaters! Come, on, the WW isn't going to have any qualms about putting away the most evil wizard the world has ever known, even if he *is* debilitated. And even in the real world, I don't see the problem. Plenty of elderly, debilitated folks have found themselves on trial for war crimes. Plenty of (now) totally harmless people have been imprisoned because of the crimes they have commited in the past. Most societies accept the concept of punishment. Doesn't Voldemort deserve punishment? Even in my most liberal moments I would have problems arguing that he didn't; with the best will in the world, I can't really see him being rehabilitated. Doesn't society have a *duty* to protect other citizens from one, who if he was allowed to regain strength, would inevitably carry on wreaking havoc and seeking ultimate power. And what's the problem with Imperius? The Aurors were permitted to use the Unforgivables in pursuit of his supporters; why shouldn't they use it to control *him*? > > > I don't think canon actually *says* that is the reason for the > > unicorn blood. And anyway, why did he *need* to be in Quirrell's > > head? Would becoming vapour be so catastrophic at this point? Was > > Voldemort *always* under Quirrell's turban? Was it Quirrell that > > crawled across the floor of the Forbidden Forest? Or was it a cloaked > > vapour as implied in the CTMNBN? Was he drinking unicorn blood in > > Albania too? I think he must have been. > > I suggested in my previous post (#40038) that Voldemort gravitates > naturally while in Vapour form to Albania. If not, I don't really know > why he didn't come looking for servants to England, and hide in some > forest closer to home. This would explain why he's in Quirrell's head: > he needs a body to move out of albania, and stop going back (this > adendum is still in development. Expect refinements coming along if you > fight against it). > Eloise: Look, I'm not sure about this, but Albania having some kind of magical gravity effect sounds awfully like a yellow flag violation to me. I admit that you've been terribly clever in pre-empting me in pointing out that it's terribly odd that he needs a body to return from Albania, but seems to get back there no problem. But.....We don't actually know *how* Quirrell brought him back. I don't think it was *in* his body, or if it was, then he must have moved out whilst Harry met him at the Leaky Cauldron: Harry's scar didn't hurt and Quirrell was able to touch him. Grey Wolf: > > Canon does tell us what the Unicorn blood is for: "Unicorn blood has > strengthened me, these past weeks" (PS, US ed., ch. 17). > > Eloise: That tells us an effect, but Firenze says its purpose is to keep you alive (PS, UK ed, p188). Stronger reason to accept a cursed, half life. Grey Wolf: > did drink a combination of Unicorn's blood with Nagini's poison > when in Fugly baby form. Eloise: Sorry, what's Fugly? I thought it was a typo in you last reply. Grey Wolf: We know he lived off animals in Albania, by possesing > them (especially snakes), so I don't think he was able to kill unicorns > in that state (as a general rule, unicorns tend to be heavy fighters, > and a simple snake wouldn't be a match). He just used the animal's life > force to keep on going and have a small amount of power left. Eloise: Quite. It just seems odd to me that Firenze makes a big deal of the unicorn blood drinking and that you can just stop. If you need something to 'keep you alive', the implication is that when you stop taking it, you will die. Grey Wolf: > anon, unlike CTMNBN, explicitly states that it was Quirrell who drank > the unicorn's blood for Voldemort: "you saw faithful Quirrell drinking > it for me in the forest" (PS, US ed., ch. 17). Eloise: Thank you for finding that ref. Interesting change. I'm beginning to wonder exactly how much editorial control JKR had of the film. That seems to be a significant difference. > > > But that seems to be precisely the point made by Firenze: only one as > > desperate as Voldemort would take on the consequences of drinking > > unicorn blood. Oh, I've just realised that Firenze actually implies > > that the Philosopher's Stone would counteract the curse. But of > > course, he never got hold of it. Grey Wolf: > > He drinks more unicorn blood afterwards anyay, so it seems that > Voldemort *is* carrying the half-life curse on him. Maybe he just > doesn't care, living a half life. He's *evil*, after all (on a side > not, I see lots of listees jumping to the opportunity of declaring > popular characters evil. Has anyone tried to expain that Voldemort is > really a good person at heart?). > > Eloise: I don't think so, but I admit that it had crossed my mind that a sort of opposite of the OFH could be fun. > > > I guess that's where conspiracy theory comes in and > > those of us who don't buy it just have to settle for uncertainty. > > > > Eloise Grey Wolf: > > If you converted, you wouldn't have these dilemas, since you'd see the > light ;-) Then again, If everyone converted, I wouldn't have anearly as > much fun as I have defending the theory. :-) > > Eloise: Who said anything about dilemmas? ;-) Life demands that we live with many uncertainties. In fact, in the Potterverse (as sometimes in RL), we can argue that it is people who see everything in terms of certainty who cause the problems. You like the good side being grey, don't you? As I have said before, I can happily live with multiple interpretations of the Potterverse - as long as they *work* (and I think MAGIC DISHWASHER does, pretty well; that is, it's tightly worked out and IMO it's difficult to disprove it on grounds of impossibility or inconsistency) . What I won't do is attempt to *believe* 'six impossible things before breakfast.' My chief objection to MAGIC DISHWASHER is that it requires such a radical rejig of our understanding of what is going on. It's a lot more than a plot twist and I just can't see getting into the fifth book, or beyond and then being told that we have to reinterpret so much of what has gone on before. Eloise Signing off with a relevant quote from Keats: "Negative Capability, that is when man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason." (which I forget in my LOON moments.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Jun 19 14:36:00 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 14:36:00 -0000 Subject: Immortal vapour? MAGIC DISHWASHER In-Reply-To: <98.27969839.2a41e52f@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40061 Eloise wrote: > Ethical/moral problems? > This is the WW we're talking about here, the WW that uses > soul-sucking Dementors as the ultimate deterrent, that imprisons > without trial, that lets DEs walk free if they are useful as spies, > that even lets people off punishment if they happen to have been > successful Beaters! Come, on, the WW isn't going to have any qualms > about putting away the most evil wizard the world has ever known, > even if he *is* debilitated. Um, I wasn't talking about the MoM, I was talking about the *light* side: Dumbledore and the old gang. Hopefully, the conduct of the MoM will change thanks to Dumbledore et al. before the end of the books. I realise that the MoM would have no trouble to imprison Voldemort by using the Imperious, appart from slight problems I'll refer to later on, but they have neither the spying capability nor the intent of doing so. I firmly believe that half the MoM is in DEs' pockets (specially Malfoy's). > And even in the real world, I don't see the problem. Plenty of > elderly, debilitated folks have found themselves on trial for war > crimes. Plenty of (now) totally harmless people have been imprisoned > because of the crimes they have commited in the past. Most societies > accept the concept of punishment. Doesn't Voldemort deserve > punishment? Even in my most liberal moments I would have problems > arguing that he didn't; with the best will in the world, I can't > really see him being rehabilitated. Doesn't society have a *duty* to > protect other citizens from one, who if he was allowed to regain > strength, would inevitably carry on wreaking havoc and seeking > ultimate power. > > And what's the problem with Imperius? The Aurors were permitted to > use the Unforgivables in pursuit of his supporters; why shouldn't > they use it to control *him*? I'm tackling both questions at the same time. I have no problem with taking away liberty as a punishment for crime (even more so than death sentence, which nonetheless I defend in Voldemort's case), and in RL I accept it, sice there are two determinant factors. One, there is possibiliy with most delinquents, of rehabilitating them (this funtion is most of the time not used to it's full potential. In RL, jails are more like universities of crime). I, like you, don't think Voldemort can be changed. For one thing, it's too star-wars-y. For other, he's just too evil (although I'll admit Darth Vader looked even more evil). The second factor is the most important, anyway. The punishment is for some time (how long depends on the charateristics of the crime), and it's main objective is to wait until the delinquent is too old to do it again, in the worst cases. Unfortunately, here's where the problem comes: Voldemort, in Vapour!Form, is inmortal, and that's where my moral sense comes kicking in. You cannot let him free, since he's not going to stop trying to take over the world. Thus, you have to keep him imprisoned *for ever*. That's too horrible punishment, even for Voldemort. Worse people have got off with less. Eternal imprisonment is something truly horrible to contemplate. And of course, my logical mind points out, there is a slight technical problem with the whole "eternal imprisonment". Sooner or later, someone in chage of keeping him in line will make an error, and Voldemort will be free again. Or someone who wants to use Voldemort's knowledge for his own reasons will come by and liberate him (which is what I originally pointed out as a reason to destroy him). The base line is that you cannot hope to keep him jailed for ever, and you don't want him to be free or to fall in bad hands. You really have only one option. And Dumbledore has followed it. > > Eloise: > effect on wolves, as red rags are supposed to on bulls> > > Look, I'm not sure about this, but Albania having some kind of > magical gravity effect sounds awfully like a yellow flag violation to > me. I admit that you've been terribly clever in pre-empting me in > pointing out that it's terribly odd that he needs a body to return > from Albania, but seems to get back there no problem. > But.....We don't actually know *how* Quirrell brought him back. I > don't think it was *in* his body, or if it was, then he must have > moved out whilst Harry met him at the Leaky Cauldron: Harry's scar > didn't hurt and Quirrell was able to touch him. Point accepted. I introduced the gravitational idea as a half joke in another poost. I knew I should have repeated the disclaimer: I don't believe it either. I spuned the whole thing out of cloth in a quick way to explian how (and why) he keeps going there when defeated. I accept I haven't the faintiest of how he manages. Oh, and I did say there was no canon in the whole idea. > Grey Wolf: > > > > Canon does tell us what the Unicorn blood is for: "Unicorn blood > > has strengthened me, these past weeks" (PS, US ed., ch. 17). > > > > Eloise: > That tells us an effect, but Firenze says its purpose is to keep you > alive (PS, UK ed, p188). Stronger reason to accept a cursed, half > life. And it does: it keeps Quirrell alive for a full schoolyear, and with no signs of inminent mortality in the Stone's chamber. We know that Voldemort's possesion technique shaprly reduces the life expectancy of his avatar, so the unicorns blood served several functions. The one that didn't serve was keeping *Voldemort* alive, since he's *inmortal* while in vapour form > Grey Wolf: > > > did drink a combination of Unicorn's blood with Nagini's poison > > when in Fugly baby form. > > Eloise: > Sorry, what's Fugly? I thought it was a typo in you last reply. A not-very-nice word a fellow listee (mostly lurker) taught me the other day. It means F***ing ugly, and it's a word that fits Voldemort's baby form very well indeed. Oh, and when she first used it, I also thought it was a typo. > Eloise > Signing off with a relevant quote from Keats: > > "Negative Capability, that is when man is capable of being in uncertainties, > Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason." > > (which I forget in my LOON moments.) Good quote. I like it Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From heidit at netbox.com Wed Jun 19 14:41:31 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 14:41:31 -0000 Subject: [[HPforGrownups] Why is AK unforgiveable was Re: Lethal Harry] Message-ID: <20020619144131.19823.qmail@uadvg137.cms.usa.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40062 "random_monkey0_0" wrote: > Pippin: > > I think it's unforgiveable because it's a spell that can *only* be > > done with murderous intent and has no use other than killing. But we don't know anything from canon about the intent one has to have while doing it. And it's also been stated that it's unforgiveable against humans - does that mean one can use it to kill bugs at one's house? Or get rid of the myriad of other pests described in FB? Is there anything AK won't work on? Perhaps Acromantulas or dragons have thick enough hides to deflect it - although if that was the case, then there would probably be some way for humans to take advantage of that, and JKR would've mentioned it by now... unless it's something that is as yet undiscovered. It's clear from canon that potions are continuously being invented - the Wolfsbane Potion is proof of that. So perhaps this is something that will develop in the next 3 books. > I was under the impression that it was unforgiveable because there was > no way to stop it (or at least, very few ways...) If that was the only reason it was unforgiveable, then casting spells on those who couldn't cast them back or block them - such as squibs or children - would be punished more than we've heard them being so far. Given that some wizards want Muggles classified as Beasts (FB), it's not hard to understand why wizarding law doesn't punish spells cast on Muggles very harshly, but what about on weaker wizards? Dropping a club on the head of a wizard-child who doesn't know how to block it yet should then be punished at least as harshly as AK is. It might very well be - we just don't know. > Most people > wouldn't even see it coming. Like Pippin said, the only reason it's > used is to kill. It is the WW equivalent of shooting someone in their > sleep. Not quite - because you can duck away from it. And perhaps jumping behind something made of stone will deflect it as well (see above hypothetical regarding skins of magical beasts as well). Being killed in your sleep is truly a no-warning situation, but there's no difference in wizarding law between using AK in a duel against someone armed and using AK against someone who is sleeping. Better to capture a lethifold and let it loose in someone's bedroom if you want to murder someone in his or her sleep. > Incidentally, if Imperius is unforgiveable, why did Crouch Sr. use it? > Would he have been thrown in jail if Junior hadn't been kissed? We don't know what the punishment level for breaking someone out of Azkaban would be. Crouch probably realised that by the time he put Imperius on his son, he'd be going to Azkaban for the breakout in the first place. heidi http://www.fictionalley.org ____________________________________________________________________ This message was sent from my Palm wireless email account. From fourfuries at aol.com Wed Jun 19 16:28:48 2002 From: fourfuries at aol.com (four4furies) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 16:28:48 -0000 Subject: Why AK is unforgiveable (a little long) In-Reply-To: <20020619144131.19823.qmail@uadvg137.cms.usa.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40063 Long time since I posted, though I have been keeping up. I think we do not give JKR enough credit for her socio-political references. The Three Unforgivable curses are unforgivable because they violate the basic Human Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (or in the case of Crucio, freedom from unjustified infliction of pain). That they are unblockable is of little consequence really. I may be able to block a knife thrust to my gut, but it is still illegal to try and stab someone. Nor is intent the key. I may not intend someone harm by locking them in my basement, but it is still false imprisonment. What counts is the effect they have on the victim. They take away the only things that make life as a human being special, be we muggles or magi. The question of the importance of human rights and qualities will likely get played out in the continuing revelations surrounding house elves. I suspect Hermione's minions here on the list will be shocked to discover that the biggest difference between House Elf slavery and our modern examples of abuse is that house elves are not human, while black slaves, european jews, gay men, feminists, the handicapped, and republicans presumably are. Finally, Crouch sr and other zealous aurors used the Unforgivables in the same way that soldiers at war have greater powers than police men at peace. Conflict and crises often cause us to compromise our virtues, but it does not relieve us of the responsibility to return to our ideals as soon as circumstances permit. You'll see what I mean as the war on terror continues. FourFuries --- In HPforGrownups at y..., heidit at n... wrote: > "random_monkey0_0" wrote: > > Pippin: > > > I think it's unforgiveable because it's a spell that can *only* be > > > done with murderous intent and has no use other than killing. > > But we don't know anything from canon about the intent one has to have while > doing it. And it's also been stated that it's unforgiveable against humans - > does that mean one can use it to kill bugs at one's house? > > I was under the impression that it was unforgiveable because there was > > no way to stop it (or at least, very few ways...) > > Incidentally, if Imperius is unforgiveable, why did Crouch Sr. use it? > > Would he have been thrown in jail if Junior hadn't been kissed? > We don't know what the punishment level for breaking someone out of Azkaban > would be. Crouch probably realised that by the time he put Imperius on his > son, he'd be going to Azkaban for the breakout in the first place. > From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jun 19 17:54:53 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 17:54:53 -0000 Subject: Albania/DISHWASHER/SPYGAMES Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40064 Why Albania? I thought the choice of Albania as Voldemort's hiding place was meant to reflect the real world situation at the time when Rowling was planning her tale. Albania was politically isolated. There was almost no trade or tourism with other countries. I got the idea that though magical Albania has a ministry of magic and is nominally a member of the International Confederation of Wizards, it is controlled by the vampires and/or other beings hostile to wizardry. Only a few wizards can get both authorization from their own ministries to visit and permission from the Albanian ministry of magic to enter. Bertha probably called on her family and ministry connections (they do seem to have wanted to get rid of her) while Quirrell gained admission as a scholar. As we know, non-human magical beings are not allowed the use of wands, so maybe there aren't a lot of wands available in Albania in the first place. (The fact that non-humans as powerful as centaurs, goblins and vampires have agreed to the ban has always suggested to me that wands must be a mixed blessing.) It could be that visiting wizards aren't normally allowed to bring their wands with them. That wouldn't have bothered Quirrell, who is an expert on wandless magic as shown by the scenes at the end of PS/SS, but it would explain why Bertha didn't have a wand on her. This makes Albania a good place for Voldemort to hide from the Aurors, but not a good place to encounter a wandering wizard who might be persuaded to use his wand for Voldemort's benefit or to allow himself to be possessed. There is no canon that Voldemort can take over an unwilling wizard (Ginny willingly poured out her soul) and it seems unlikely. Otherwise Voldemort could just take over Dumbledore or even Harry himself. Perhaps Harry's first dream in Gryffindor tower, where he hears a voice telling him to transfer to Slytherin, was a failed attempt to possess him. The SPYGAMES/DISHWASHER theories present the battle as a contest of wits rather than good vs. evil, but so far we actually have the characters, for all their intricate plotting, making dumber mistakes than their surface reading counterparts. It would be grossly foolish of Dumbledore to offer Pettigrew to Voldemort for the MAGIC DISHWASHER unless Dumbledore knew that Voldemort had no easy alternatives to using Pettigrew for the spell. But as Voldemort himself says, the task is one that many of his followers would give their right hands to perform. It is just as foolish for SPYGAMES!Voldemort not to realize that, having expended his one irreplaceable resource, his immortality, for the sake of killing Harry, he has committed himself to a fight to the finish. He gains nothing by letting Harry get away. Time is now on Dumbledore's side not Voldemort's, because though Dumbledore may be weakening with age, Harry is growing stronger. And now Voldemort will be aging too. Ultimately, SPYGAMES leaves us back where we started, with a battle of good vs. evil. Voldemort plans to allow Harry to escape the graveyard because he, Voldemort, is not willing to face death. Harry is going to win, not because Dumbledore has been more clever than Voldemort, but because unlike Voldemort, Harry and his friends don't consider their personal survival the highest cause. Pippin From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Wed Jun 19 18:04:07 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 11:04:07 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Severus Snape and The Incident In-Reply-To: <00ab01c213c9$ea73b140$429f5651@tinyjyuaxzlq> References: <00ab01c213c9$ea73b140$429f5651@tinyjyuaxzlq> Message-ID: <15957318999.20020619110407@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40065 Friday, June 14, 2002, 10:35:46 AM, Felicia Rickmann wrote: FR> Much detailed discussion has taken place about The Prank and if there was FR> something earlier e.g. The Incident, say, a house move *might* not be out of FR> the question, given Snape's gift for potions. There may be no canonical FR> evidence for house changing but it can't be completely unknown - just out of FR> Harry's sphere of knowledge. This idea about Snape changing houses makes my want to combine it with my other pet theory about Snape changing *identities*, so that we get the following: Snape is born Perseus Evans, half-blood cousin to our "Darling Lily". He comes to Hogwarts and is sorted in Gryffindor, along with Lily and the Fab Four. Then, for reasons as yet unknown, he is expelled (this explains his obsession with getting Harry expelled -- Revenge!), but Dumbledore allows him to be re-admitted under an alias. So Perseus scrambles the letters in his name to "Severus Snape", and this time is sorted into Slytherin, now a bitter and sour kid (from the humilation of his expulsion and the aftermath), and becomes the thorn in the side of the Potter family that we know and love/hate. Comments...? FR> (I am always puzzled why Neville - a gifted FR> herbology student - was placed in Gryffindor. I know his Mum and Dad were FR> attached but.....) I'm afraid that I fail to see any connection between a particular House and a particular magical discipline... Can you elaborate? (I apologize if it's already been covered -- I know I'm about 5 days behind in reading HP4GU msgs...) -- Dave From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Wed Jun 19 18:14:26 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:14:26 +0100 Subject: Severus Snape and The Incident - Neville - again References: <00ab01c213c9$ea73b140$429f5651@tinyjyuaxzlq> <15957318999.20020619110407@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <007601c217bd$25692220$429f5651@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 40066 Each house has its characteristics does it not? (Adumbrated at length early on Potterverse.) So, I had Neville down - on current character, and Despite standing up to the threesome in PS and Despite having his Mum and Dad all but destroyed by one of the currently much discussed Unforgivables- as a Hufflepuff, hard working etc., etc., Not a discipline but more an attitude and approach to things (as general house characteristics seem to indicate) Neville is good at Herbology not the bold and dearless Gryffindor * limelight stealing * that Harry and friends partke of. From the talents Neville has displayed so far, and with no indication to the contrary I think I have every right to be puzzled and expect more of an explanation Later, perhaps * G * in book 5. Or should I call it "The Book That Must Not Be Named" Felicia > FR> (I am always puzzled why Neville - a gifted > FR> herbology student - was placed in Gryffindor. I know his Mum and Dad were > FR> attached but.....) > > I'm afraid that I fail to see any connection between a particular > House and a particular magical discipline... Can you elaborate? > (I apologize if it's already been covered -- I know I'm about 5 days > behind in reading HP4GU msgs...) > > -- > Dave > From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Wed Jun 19 18:58:59 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 11:58:59 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: Sexuality in HP (WAS So, why did Snape turn on Voldermort?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <17860610988.20020619115859@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40067 Sunday, June 16, 2002, 6:40:06 AM, darrin_burnett wrote: d> My point is that the real world and the Harry Potter world don't work d> the same way. JKR has made a point of delaying puberty. Those are the d> rules in the world she has created. It's not unlike the old Hardy d> Boys books. Yes, they had girlfriends, but frankly, they were too d> busy solving crimes to worry about nonsense like that. At least JKR acknowledges that girls (even magically adept ones) do "notice" boys, and vice versa... Even *that* is major taboo in most orthodox Oz stories. d> Did you cringe when Malfoy and his buddies got smacked down at the d> end of GoF? Because all they were doing was expressing a different d> point of view. But it *was* an implicit threat, in the same vein as: "The last to go will see the first three go before her -- And her mangy little dog too!" -- Dave From beazumd at yahoo.com Wed Jun 19 13:26:25 2002 From: beazumd at yahoo.com (beazumd) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 13:26:25 -0000 Subject: Symbols next to Characters' Names (HP&Me) - Meanings? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40068 ---nightlysparks wrote: > >Then there is a coloured in square, or an open circle. I think the >dark square is if the character is male (except, oddly enough, in >the case of Neville Longbottom), thus making the circle mean the >character is female. > Hmm. I totally agree with your circle/square premise, execpt the part about Neville. If you look at the picture of that page of her journal (http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/hpforgrownups/vwp?.dir=/Harry+Po tter+%26+Me&.src=gr&.dnm=schoollist3.jpg&.view=t) that is in the files section, it looks to me like Neville doesn't have any infomation on him... There are three names -Su Li, Neville, and Isabel (mac?)Dougal -at the bottom of that page. Neville is smashed in between the two Ravenclaw girls... ~Bea From lav at tut.by Wed Jun 19 14:13:49 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 17:13:49 +0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Spying Game Part II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1432830078.20020619171349@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 40069 Greetings! *** I wrote: >> In this situation battle had to go to the end. *** Pip replied: b> You might well end up being absolutely right. But isn't b> it a key point in military strategies that 'wars are not b> won by the side who makes no mistakes; because all sides b> always make mistakes. Wars are won by the side who makes b> the LEAST mistakes.' [grin] Not exactly. Some mistakes are more important than others. b> I would argue against Voldemort believing that THIS was b> the decisive battle that has to go to an end. He's just b> resurrected, he has his human body back, but he's had to b> pay a price for that. That's probably right. b> (...) b> This is not a 'Fight to the end' situation (In b> Voldemort's view). It's an 'allow yourself a line of b> retreat situation' - which the majority of battles are. I agree that Voldemort most likely considered this battle the way you described. Still, it was the mistake. Look below. b> Truly decisive battles are very rare. Disagreed. Every war has a decisive battle. Winner of the decisive battle can win the war by "standard technical methods", described in all military regulations. ;) *** However, as Grey Wolf has written: gw> There are two things I want to point out, though: most gw> of the decisive battles were not identified as such gw> until *after* the war, when historians could examine all gw> the evidence and point out: "there they should have gw> commited their forces. They didn't, thus, they lost. It gw> was the decisive battle, and they didn't see it." The gw> trouble, when you're in a war, is identifying the battle gw> as decisive. I agree completely. That's why Klauzevitz warned in his works, that *every* battle can prove to be decisive. And that's why German strategists in both WW's tried to win the war in a *single* operation - to reduce the chaotic element to the minimum. gw> Yes, Voldemort probably made a mistake at not managing gw> to kill Harry, but it is not as terrible a mistake as it gw> wuld be in a muggle war, because there is another gw> objective in Voldemort's mind: inmortality. If Voldemort gw> manages to find a way into inmortality before Dumbledore gw> can destroy him, battles will mean nothing, because he gw> cannot be defeaten. He will keep reviving until he wins. gw> From behind the perfect defense, you only have to wait gw> until your enemy makes a mistake, and (from an infinite gw> lenght of time point of view) that mistake, sooner or gw> later, will be made. First, there is no such thing as "absolute defence". Second, no matter what defence Voldie comes up with, Harry is the most probable person to crack it open. Third, with Harry dead, research for immortality can be performed in much more comfortable situation. And a slight mistake on your side: Voldemort still did NOT get immortality, neither he knew how to achieve it. Yes, one of his experiments worked, if only partially, but which one? He doesn't know. The only way to know is to experiment... ;) So, Voldemort does *not* know how long will his quest for immortality take. At the same time he knows for sure how much time Harry needs to get to the height of his powers: 3 years in Hogwarts. Voldemort had all the necessary information to make the correct decision. So it was just what it was: a mistake on his part. The mistake that will bring his doom. *** Grey Wolf also wrote: gw> Can we count you in as a convinced listee, then? The gw> theory fits and, if you're the same kind of war fan I am gw> (which looks probable, by reading your post), I'm sure gw> you'll love all its ramifications. Count me a convicted listee, whatever this means. ;) As for loving all ramifications... I love analytic work. I care the least for the scenario, or SHIPs, or who will get killed. What I am thrilled about is the internal logic of Potterverse - all the laws, axioms, theorems and theories that can be extracted from the books. In game terms, I'm interested in the rules, not in the setting. *** And then Grey Wolf wrote even more: gw> The other possibility is that the cup was altready gw> enchanted as a portkey, to get whomever touched it to gw> the entrance of the maze, and Crouch!Moody, being gw> uncapable of destroying that enchantment, simply put one gw> before it: the one that sends you to the graveyard. And that's an idea worth putting into the HP Lexicon, IMHO. I didn't think about it beforehand, but now that you said it, I believe that's how it was. It is indeed logical to put such enchantment. Or the winner can potentially be eaten by the Skrewts on way back... ;) Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, always happy to throw weird ideas into community. Wednesday, June 19, 2002, 16:40 local time (GMT+2:00) From rowen_lm at yahoo.com Wed Jun 19 18:06:55 2002 From: rowen_lm at yahoo.com (Liz Muir) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 11:06:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Climax in Book 4? was Re: The Spying Game II In-Reply-To: <1024480143.1987.2087.m11@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020619180655.74062.qmail@web20903.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40070 Alexander Lomski said: >>I refuse to accept the idea that climax of the story is in Book 7. From my (military history fan) point of view, climax of the series is the Graveyard Scene. Harry demonstrated that Voldemort *already* cannot kill him. Even though Harry was weakened and softened and handled the most inappropriate weapon.<< This is very plausible. Another good analogy for this, besides military history, is a Shakespeare play. Almost all of Shakespeare's plays have the climax in the third (of five) acts. The last two acts wrap up lose ends and resolve conflicts. This is possibly what JKR is doing with her books. Though, I'd have to admit, three novels is a lot of space to "wrap up" a story line . . . . Rowen ===== Liz Muir "I can not, I will not cut my standards to fit this year's fashions." "Life is tough, but it's a lot tougher if you're STUPID!" "The guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth then to the very center." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From bard7696 at aol.com Wed Jun 19 18:13:05 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 18:13:05 -0000 Subject: Severus Snape and The Incident In-Reply-To: <15957318999.20020619110407@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40071 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > > Friday, June 14, 2002, 10:35:46 AM, Felicia Rickmann wrote: > > FR> Much detailed discussion has taken place about The Prank and if there was > FR> something earlier e.g. The Incident, say, a house move *might* not be out of > FR> the question, given Snape's gift for potions. There may be no canonical > FR> evidence for house changing but it can't be completely unknown - just out of > FR> Harry's sphere of knowledge. > And Dave wrote: > This idea about Snape changing houses makes my want to combine it with > my other pet theory about Snape changing *identities*, so that we get > the following: > > Snape is born Perseus Evans, half-blood cousin to our "Darling Lily". > He comes to Hogwarts and is sorted in Gryffindor, along with Lily and > the Fab Four. Then, for reasons as yet unknown, he is expelled (this > explains his obsession with getting Harry expelled -- Revenge!), but > Dumbledore allows him to be re-admitted under an alias. So Perseus > scrambles the letters in his name to "Severus Snape", and this time is > sorted into Slytherin, now a bitter and sour kid (from the humilation > of his expulsion and the aftermath), and becomes the thorn in the side > of the Potter family that we know and love/hate. > And I write: Hey, why not? As Felicia said, there is no evidence for or against house-switching and as I've said many times, the hatred Snape shows for James, Lupin and Black, and by extension, Harry, Ron, Hermione and Neville, seems to go much deeper than Quidditch jealousy. The whole bit about being readmitted under an alias has a big factor in favor and a big factor against. Against: Unless he drastically changed his appearance, the other students would likely know who he was. Of course, as we've discussed with the Time Turner, the students and faculty can be made woefully ignorant of the events around them if it suits JKR's plot. For: It ties in nicely with Dumbledore being a far-thinking mastermind. Snape is obviously brilliant and was a brilliant student - - he knew more curses ... blah, blah, blah -- and Dumbledore realized it would be better to have such a mind around where he could have a chance of molding it. Hey, it's as good as any other theory. Darrin -- If JKR could see us now... she'd really bust a gut with laughter... or with disgust. :) From petra.delisser at saunalahti.fi Wed Jun 19 18:31:18 2002 From: petra.delisser at saunalahti.fi (brinforest) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 18:31:18 -0000 Subject: Nitwit & Co Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40072 Hey all. I actually managed to think of something that nobody's posted before as far as I know: it just occurred to me that Nitwit, Blubber, Oddment and Tweak are either secret nicknames of the founders, or ? get this ? the Marauders of Dumbledore's youth, him being one! Would anyone like to comment on that? Brin From nmfry at hotmail.com Wed Jun 19 19:02:07 2002 From: nmfry at hotmail.com (N Fry) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:02:07 +0000 Subject: wands Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40073 This is something that I've been curious about for a while and was reminded about last night while rereading the "Weighing of the Wands" scene in GoF. I thought that, with all the endless speculation about enchanted appliances and the various degrees of evilness of and/or potential for betrayal by [insert random character name here], it might be nice to temporarily distract everyone with a lighter topic of discussion. Mr. Ollivander (sp?) tells Harry that wands pick their owners. But is there only one wand that could be yours? In PS/SS, Ron says that he's using one of his brothers' old wands (Percy's, IIRC). So Percy has a different wand from the one he originally started out with. Also, Ollivander says that he can remember when Lily came in to buy her *first* wand. This implies to me that she owned at least one other wand at some point in her life, otherwise he would have just said "her wand." I believe that there must be multiple wands that could be compatible with a wizard. Some are just more so than others. If not, what are the odds that the one wand that is suited to Harry just happens to be in the wand store that he stops in? We know from GoF that Ollivander isn't the only wand maker in the world. What about the people who have to replace their wands? Accidents happen, and wands get broken or lost. Ollivander says (possibly on a number of occasions?) that no two wands are alike. He wouldn't be able to recreate them. Wands don't work in an all or nothing fashion. Does that make sense? I'll explain... Harry is told that it is possible to use another person's wand, but the results won't be as good as he would get with a wand that has picked him. So it's not just a case of only being able to use that one wand. If a wizard could use any wand (with varying degrees of success), then couldn't there be more than one that would work well for him/her. Another idea to consider - Do you think it is possible to "outgrow" your wand? I'm assuming that the wand picks you based on the person that you are at the time of purchase, but as your abilities grow and change, could the wand becomes less effective? Perhaps this explains why Percy replaced a perfectly good wand. Of course, like many of the Weasley's possessions, he could have gotten his first wand second hand. The family may have had a little extra money at the beginning of PS/SS and decided to get him one that specifically picked him. But that still supports my idea, because *someone* had to have gotten rid of it in order for Percy to buy it. Until Ron breaks it in the car accident, there is never any description of anything appearing to be wrong with it, except for maybe a little bit of the stuffing sticking out of the end. It seems to be in fine working order, Ron just has a little bit of trouble with it because it didn't pick him. ~ Nik (who wants her own wand and is curious to know what type she would get) Speaking of getting a wand - For those of you who braved the dvd version of the CTMNBN (I swear this is book related!), did you notice that they used wand discriptions from the books in the extra features? There's a part where you can "visit" Diagon Alley and buy a wand (amongst other things). Each wand is described before you try it out. I happened to notice they were repeats of wands I had read about, because the one I ended up with had the exact same description as Lily's wand. The others also sounded familiar, but I couldn't remember off the top of my head who they belonged to (or if they were just ones that Harry tried out while shopping for his wand). _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From JPA30 at cam.ac.uk Wed Jun 19 19:37:50 2002 From: JPA30 at cam.ac.uk (archeaologee) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:37:50 -0000 Subject: polyjuice question.. (Long & Confusing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40074 Carrie-Ann wrote: > Yes, Hair does carry DNA, well the hair follicles do... I thought it might, but wasn't sure - also don't remember follicles being mentioned. Thanks for clearing it up though. Carrie-Ann again: > > If the spirit of the person who you transform into is with you > whilst > > you are transformed (as could be argued by the fact you take on > their > > physical appearance) then the link formed from person B's hair will > > be to person A (so that is who you transform into). > > I don't think that I understand this part... From the explaination, I > would think that you mean that since person A has transformed into > person B, the link would be to person B (the original owner of the > hair...), but you go on to say that it would be person A. Am I > confused, or is that an error > person A= "Crouch Jr." > person B= "Moody," and > person C= "Snape" > > So if "snape" tries to tranform into Moody, but takes a hair > from "Crouch!Moody", Are you saying he'll turn into "Crouch" > or "Moody"? I think that you are saying he'll turn into "Moody", is > that right. Yup, the idea is that you take on the spirit of the person you tranform into whilst transformed. So, as you are linked to Moody whilst Crouch!Moody then you skip the Crouch bit. The point is that you distribute "spirit" with the hair, also it is the "spirit" which dictates the transformation. Couple of pretty big premises on pretty shaky ground there though. > > However, if one assumes that you retain your own spirit during the > > transformation then the homeopathic link will be to person B, > > regardless of their outward appearance. This would also apply to > > animagi, you would transform into the person, not the animal, no > > matter what they looked like when the hair was obtained. > In this scenario, I think that your explaination points to the link > being to "Crouch", because he has retained his own spirit even though > his appearance is that of "Moody", right? Yes indeedy. Assumption is that you only take on the appearance and not the spirit of Moody whilst transformed. I guess that's why I really > like Corinth's theory: > >Perhaps person C would turn into person A turned into person B. In > >other words, they would take on the appearance of person B for the > >remainder of person A's hour, and then turn "back" into person A for > >the remainder of his or her own hour. So do I, didn't think about that at all. Would like to add that if you change back in an hour whatever, it might be the time that you make the potion that is critical. If you look at Crouch!Moody he carries the potion around with him all day. This would mean that it doesn't have to be drunk immediately, so it may well be what you are transformed into when the hair is added to the potion that is important. On a sidenote, what on earth would happen if you through the hair in *whilst* it was changing back. All kinds of funky scenarios there Just to bring in fairy tales, if this is like Cinerella then her shoes\appearance\mice change back to the original state at midnight....but...the glass slipper that is removed from her stays the same. So, if the potion is the same than any hair you take from the transformed person will remain in the transformed state. This is a giant leap, but I have a feeling JKR is more familiar with this story than anthropological views on magic. > >-Corinth, who just discovered this group and is thrilled to learn > >she is not the only person who obsesses over details of a fictional > >universe. > > Welcome, Corinth! Also welcome, have fun and write often :-) > Carrie-Ann (who has sent her head spinning with all of this, and > would like to apologize in advance if her use of the fictional > scenario of "snape" trying to become "Moody" through "Crouch!Moody" > wasn't the correct way to go about things, but she couldn't think of > another way!) It was good, visualisations are always helpful, and I am sure you have sparked a thousand plot bunnies. James From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Jun 19 19:50:47 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:50:47 -0000 Subject: Albania/DISHWASHER/SPYGAMES In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40075 Pippin wrote: > The SPYGAMES/DISHWASHER theories present the battle as a > contest of wits rather than good vs. evil, but so far we actually > have the characters, for all their intricate plotting, making dumber > mistakes than their surface reading counterparts. It would be > grossly foolish of Dumbledore to offer Pettigrew to Voldemort for > the MAGIC DISHWASHER unless Dumbledore knew that > Voldemort had no easy alternatives to using Pettigrew for the > spell. But as Voldemort himself says, the task is one that many > of his followers would give their right hands to perform. Yes, any would do. So why would Voldemort call *another* DE to give his right hand for him when he's already got *one right there*? Besides, not all would be so desiring. I doubt Malfoy would do it. And I don't think that, if Voldemort has doubts about his DEs' loyalties, he would want any of them close to him while in his debilitated state. Notice that he didn't call them until *after* the reembodiment, when we know that he had been gaining stenght ("the mark has become progresively clear"), and the power to use the mark is minor, problably: just a little willing on Voldemort's part. And there is all that shivering in the group when he accuses them of unloyalty. A few may still be loyal, but Voldemort *does not need* to take any risks: he knows Peter will be enough, and he knows Peter's not going to leave him, because he's the only one that can protect him from Dumbledore and, what's more important, from Black's wraith. All the while the potion has been the *easiest* method. Voldemort has everything he needs right at hand, in his father's house, except for the enemies blood. It's thanks to Dumbledore's plotting (or simply due to Voldeemort's wrong ideas) that Voldemort believes that using Harry will give him Harry's protection (which it may. We don't know. But in any case, it's got two edges to it). So why, if he's already involved in a major plot to get Harry to the graveyard, should he get in contact with yet another DE just to have him drop by to give him his left hand, when *he's already got a suitable left hand nursing him*? > It is just as foolish for SPYGAMES!Voldemort not to realize that, > having expended his one irreplaceable resource, his immortality, > for the sake of killing Harry, he has committed himself to a fight > to the finish. He gains nothing by letting Harry get away. Time is > now on Dumbledore's side not Voldemort's, because though > Dumbledore may be weakening with age, Harry is growing > stronger. And now Voldemort will be aging too. Note one: SPYGAME? Where did that come from? What does the acronym mean? Who presented it? If you're refering to the spy game post of Pip, it's still the MAGIC DISHWASHER theory, it's its second part, explaining the graveyard scene. Note two: Voldemort *did not* give up his inmortality to kill Harry. He gave up his debilitated inmortality so he had enough power to take over the world. He may have been inmortal, but I don't think that his vapour form of inmortality was what he had in mind all those years ago when he started looking for inmortality. He wants to be inmortal, but also very powerful, and, without the PS, he's not going to manage both without passing through a mortal body again. Note three: He gains nothing leaving Harry run away *but* he has gained much with having him around. He's out of the cul-de-sac alley he had managed to get into with his vapour form, for one thing. His DEs know he's once again powerful, know he can touch Harry, and know he can make Harry flee. He looks like the old wizard he once was. And, as soons as one of them adds one and one, they will realize that the Pirori Incantatem effect was a stupid coincidence, and they will get Voldemort a new wand so he can kill the brat. Not only that: this time, the face off between Voldemort and Harry hsn't finished in Voldemort's defeat, but in a draw of sorts (although I can tell you that the side that flees the battlefield is generally accepted as the defeated party). Note four: the time is running the same for both sides. Voldemort still has three years to kill Harry, and now that he's back to his old self, he'll probably start devicing again the plans that last time worked so well, in fact bringing the entire English WW to their colective knees. > Ultimately, SPYGAMES leaves us back where we started, with a > battle of good vs. evil. Voldemort plans to allow Harry to escape > the graveyard because he, Voldemort, is not willing to face death. > Harry is going to win, not because Dumbledore has been more > clever than Voldemort, but because unlike Voldemort, Harry and > his friends don't consider their personal survival the highest > cause. > > Pippin If you want to take this to the metathinking game of what JKR wants to tell us, do so. It's outside the sphere of influence of MAGIC DISHWASHER, as I've said so many times before. The fact is that the next books we're probably going to watch the darkest side of the WW: Voldemort scheming new dark plans, Dumbledore working underhanded because he has to fight against Vcoldemort and the MoM at the same time, and the MoM, as soon as they realize that Voldemort is back (some place in the middle of book 6, but what I've observed this far) are going to go back to their brutal methods. Which is exaclty what MAGIC DISHWASHER says that has been happening all along. This time, however, Harry will be old enough to see it. Or maybe not. We'll just have to wait for OoP to see how it fits the theory. I'm quite confident it will fit well, though. I believe that the series will not end in a big, open confrontation between both sides, but that, thanks to some clever planning from Dumbledore's side (which by then, since he may be dead, will may have been taken over by the master strategist Ron Weasley) will face Voldemort and Harry, with conditions manipulated so that Harry *can* win (on the metahthinking side, the fight will be difficult and heroic and nearly impossible, in an appropiate summun point of the series, but Harry will win thanks to his intelligence and planning, not due to some wild chance, even if some is involved). On a side note completely, I wonder what JKR will think of to stop Voldemort from using his old inmortality spells again on himself? (you know, the ones that made it poossible for him to survive a rebounded AK). This can tunr into a *very* long series if Voldemort just keeps turning into Vapour!Voldemort every time he's beaten. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Wed Jun 19 20:18:51 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 21:18:51 +0100 Subject: Nitwit & Com ;-)) References: Message-ID: <002301c217ce$878a8820$429f5651@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 40076 Oh I hope so - anything has to be better than earnest discussions about dishwashers in any shape or form. Having a first set of Marauders would give the second * set * something to build on, the idea of the Marauders Map being very sophisticated magic indeed even for bright sparks lie Sirius, James and Remus (Peter - bright? - doubtful). Being of an older generation their nicknames would be much more old fashioned (150 years olf fashioned). Alternatively, they could be a lot of old soap suds * g * Felicia (still keen on The Incident) Hey all. I actually managed to think of something that nobody's posted before as far as I know: it just occurred to me that Nitwit, Blubber, Oddment and Tweak are either secret nicknames of the founders, or - get this - the Marauders of Dumbledore's youth, him being one! Would anyone like to comment on that? Brin ________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 greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed Jun 19 20:29:57 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 20:29:57 -0000 Subject: Spying Game Part II In-Reply-To: <1432830078.20020619171349@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40077 Alexander wrote: > *** Pip replied: > b> Truly decisive battles are very rare. > > Disagreed. Every war has a decisive battle. Winner of the > decisive battle can win the war by "standard technical > methods", described in all military regulations. ;) You're, in fact, both right. Decisive battles *are* rare, even if every war has one. After all, if you divide the number of decisive battles of history by the total number of battles in history, you'd probably get less than 1%. That's *rare.* > *** However, as Grey Wolf has written: > gw> Yes, Voldemort probably made a mistake at not managing > gw> to kill Harry, but it is not as terrible a mistake as it > gw> wuld be in a muggle war, because there is another > gw> objective in Voldemort's mind: inmortality. If Voldemort > gw> manages to find a way into inmortality before Dumbledore > gw> can destroy him, battles will mean nothing, because he > gw> cannot be defeaten. He will keep reviving until he wins. > gw> From behind the perfect defense, you only have to wait > gw> until your enemy makes a mistake, and (from an infinite > gw> lenght of time point of view) that mistake, sooner or > gw> later, will be made. > > First, there is no such thing as "absolute defence". > > Second, no matter what defence Voldie comes up with, Harry > is the most probable person to crack it open. > > Third, with Harry dead, research for immortality can be > performed in much more comfortable situation. Well, there's where we differ. I'm basing my thoughts on the fact that Voldemort has, indeed, almost managed the "perfect" defence. If he manages to become inmortal, there's not a d*mned thing anyone can do to win him. It's not going to happen, though, because he has made mistakes, and in the end those mistakes will outweight the mistakes Dumbledore has done. Your second point is metathinking, so I'm not going to comment too much on it. From Voldemort's point of view, Harry is a dangerour opponent, but Dumbledore is still the main enemy he has. And indeed, his defenses will be attacked by Dumbledore, even if it's by using Harry, at least for a few books. I don't really expect Harry to start taking command of things until he's 17. I agree that taking care of Harry would make things much easier for Dumbledore, but you can say that of any enemy. Germany would have had no troubles to take over the world if it hadn't been for Russia, England and the USA. However, things would not be absolutely easy, since Dumbledore would still be around, and I'm sure he has a plan B for the case where Harry buys the farm (i.e., is killed) > And a slight mistake on your side: Voldemort still did NOT > get immortality, neither he knew how to achieve it. Yes, one > of his experiments worked, if only partially, but which one? > He doesn't know. The only way to know is to experiment... ;) I believe ha was inmortal while in vapuor form. Not powerful, so Voldemort didn't enjoy the shape, but he *was* inmortal. I've mentioned in another post that I'm waiting to see how JKR evades the question of Voldemort using his old inmortality spells again, since they *did* work, even if with some unexpected results... > So, Voldemort does *not* know how long will his quest for > immortality take. At the same time he knows for sure how > much time Harry needs to get to the height of his powers: 3 > years in Hogwarts. He was willing to face Dumbledore in the height of his powers before the AK accident. Why would he suddenly turn coward, and not face Harry? > Voldemort had all the necessary information to make the > correct decision. So it was just what it was: a mistake on > his part. The mistake that will bring his doom. And that's where MAGIC DISHWASHER kicks in: he hadn't, in fact, all the *correct* information. The spy war that had been waging between him and Dumbledore has finally reached a boiling point, and Voldemort has been taking decisions on wrong information. First one, that his mortal body is as good as the old one, and that he may achive inmortality through it. The dishwasher theory states that, in fact, the potion was flawed and that his body is not as good as the old one. But he doesn't know, because that's what the war is all about. There has been a decisive victory in the information war, as well as in the physical one: Voldemort took the wrong potion. And THAT will bring his doom. Even if Harry had been killed in the graveyard, Dumbledore would have had the pieces in place for the chackmate. Harry is his chess-queen, the most powerful piece, but his other pieces are still waiting. > *** Grey Wolf also wrote: > > gw> Can we count you in as a convinced listee, then? The > gw> theory fits and, if you're the same kind of war fan I am > gw> (which looks probable, by reading your post), I'm sure > gw> you'll love all its ramifications. > > Count me a convicted listee, whatever this means. ;) Convicted? I hope that was a typo :-) > As for loving all ramifications... I love analytic work. I > care the least for the scenario, or SHIPs, or who will get > killed. What I am thrilled about is the internal logic of > Potterverse - all the laws, axioms, theorems and theories > that can be extracted from the books. In game terms, I'm > interested in the rules, not in the setting. That's my favourite part, too, specially when working out rules and comparing them to the other fantasy worlds. That's why I like this thory: it works on a set of pre-set rules that aren't based in some metathinking JKR's will, but on a simple information war, and still *everything fits* > *** And then Grey Wolf wrote even more: > gw> The other possibility is that the cup was altready > gw> enchanted as a portkey, to get whomever touched it to > gw> the entrance of the maze, and Crouch!Moody, being > gw> uncapable of destroying that enchantment, simply put one > gw> before it: the one that sends you to the graveyard. > > And that's an idea worth putting into the HP Lexicon, > IMHO. I didn't think about it beforehand, but now that you > said it, I believe that's how it was. > > It is indeed logical to put such enchantment. Or the > winner can potentially be eaten by the Skrewts on way > back... ;) Why, thank you, you honour me. > Sincerely yours, > Alexander Lomski, > Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, > always happy to throw weird ideas into community. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From goddess at yaoigoddess.com Wed Jun 19 20:33:26 2002 From: goddess at yaoigoddess.com (Rochelle) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 16:33:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] SHIP: Sexuality in HP (WAS So, why did Snape turn on Voldermort?) References: <17860610988.20020619115859@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <3D10EA96.304ED869@yaoigoddess.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40078 > Sunday, June 16, 2002, 6:40:06 AM, darrin_burnett wrote: > d> My point is that the real world and the Harry Potter world don't work > d> the same way. JKR has made a point of delaying puberty. Those are the > d> rules in the world she has created. It's not unlike the old Hardy > d> Boys books. Yes, they had girlfriends, but frankly, they were too > d> busy solving crimes to worry about nonsense like that. And Dave Hardenbrook responded: > At least JKR acknowledges that girls (even magically adept ones) do > "notice" boys, and vice versa... Even *that* is major taboo in > most orthodox Oz stories. But when you examine them closely, are the HP books REALLY that innocent? Here are a few things to think about, mostly subject to interpretation, and some harder to ignore than others. 1)From the "easily ignored" category, we have the thing that Harry would "sorely miss" [p.463] which, of course, turned out to be Ron [p.498] Granted, this is innocent enough; Harry IS ron's closest friend. But especially when given the fact that two of the other three competitors had to rescue their girlfriends/dance dates (Krum had to save Hermione; Cedric had to save Cho), the homoerotic subtext here isn't that hard to find. 2)This incident: -"Have you been spying on him, too?" said Harry indignantly. "What d'you do, sneak up here in the evenings to watch the prefects take baths?" "Sometimes," said Myrtle, rather slyly, "but I've never come out to speak to anyone before." [GoF, p.462] *g* Humorous, yes, but a little perverted no matter HOW you interpret it. 3)Tom Riddle's "hungry eyes" in CoS [p.309, 311]. Okay, so maybe looking at someone "hungrily" means something completely different in England than it usually does in the States (though I doubt it). And yes, if you try, you can just brush it off. But nonetheless, we've got some pretty blatant homoerotic subtext going on. 4)CoS, pages 285-286 where Percy goes to great lengths to keep Ginny from telling anyone what she caught him doing. All right, so it turns out that he was kissing his new girlfriend [p.341]. But up until that gets revealed, you know very well what you THOUGHT he was doing! ;) I'm pretty sure the scene was written that way to lead older readers' thoughts in precisely that direction. 5)And finally, we have the elephant that's sitting in the living room: that entire... thing... that happened near the end of GoF [p.636-658]. We have Harry bound and helpless as his blood is "forcibly taken" [p.642] -- a violation of his body. To me, this looks like a fairly obvious metaphor for rape; to make it even clearer, the knife (a common phallic symbol) "penetrates" [p.642 again] Harry's flesh. Not slices. Not pierces. But "penetrates." There's just too much going on here for the parallel to be unintentional. This list is not complete. I could add quite a bit more if I wanted, but I think that's enough for now. Personally, I think J.K.R. is a closet slasher. ;) But that's just my opinion. *Rochelle. :) -- http://www.YaoiGoddess.com/ --Long Live the Slash. http://www.fanfiction.net/profile.php?userid=26023 --My fics on FFN. http://www.YaoiGoddess.com/light/ --Dying of the Light: A history of Severus Snape, Dark Arts prodigy turned Death Eater. ------------------ From mbsilvana at yahoo.com Wed Jun 19 21:10:06 2002 From: mbsilvana at yahoo.com (mbsilvana) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 21:10:06 -0000 Subject: A matter of fanfic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40079 I'm not sure where to post this, so I thought I'd ask you, since this seems to be a mature (thank god) Harry Potter list. I'm just getting into writing HP fic, but I've been a fanfic writer for five years. Thing is, I can't find where to post my HP fics... fanfiction.net is overburdened with it (and most of the quality is questionable at best), and the most I can find of mature HP fics is slash or heavily romance oriented... which is not where my writing tends. Are there and adult HP fanfic list that focus more on philosophy than on someone boinking someone else? Or is it ok to post here? I did a search, but I didn't notice any fics posted here... The first fic I have is an Ollivander short... which obviously doesn't fit into most of the "classic" places that host. Any advice? Lists? I'm putting it on Fictionalley, but I'd prefer somewhere else- I'm really a ML junkie at heart. ~Aishuu From alina at distantplace.net Wed Jun 19 23:11:03 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:11:03 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] A matter of fanfic References: Message-ID: <01ba01c217e6$95ef4c80$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40080 Here is a place devoted to HP fics and it's very well organized. http://www.fictionalley.org/ Hope that helps. Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ "I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails ----- Original Message ----- From: mbsilvana To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com I'm just getting into writing HP fic, but I've been a fanfic writer for five years. Thing is, I can't find where to post my HP fics... --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.368 / Virus Database: 204 - Release Date: 30/05/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Thu Jun 20 00:11:40 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 17:11:40 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lucius Malfoy and CoS plot/Lucius vs. Arthur In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <15310674301.20020619171140@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40081 Sunday, June 16, 2002, 5:46:11 PM, joeblackish wrote: j> Imagine: Lucius to Riddle/Diary!V come to life: j> "Okay, kid, killing Mudbloods is fun, and I'm really proud of you j> for finally doing in that Potter kid. But you want to really have j> some good times? You need to go reunite with your older, more j> powerful, and currently vapor self. It's perfect, you've got the j> body, he's got supreme evil know-how, think of the good times j> you two could have together." j> It's brilliant! Diary!V to Lucius: "Yeah, that's a great plan, Mr. Malfoy... Just one snag... I don't wanna! I don't want to share my new body with some vapourous git, even if it *is* an alternate version of me. I want to live my own life and evade all of Vapor!V's dumb mistakes; so he can rot in Albania for all I care!" Lucius: "Oops!" (Of course, this depends on Diary!V having true sentience and free will and not being some kind of magical automaton, which is far from clear.) j> P.S. Do we have any estimate on when the elder Malfoy was in j> Hogwarts? I have this pet idea (unsupported by canon as far as I j> know), that he was there around the same time as Arthur and j> Molly. Maybe their mutual animosity was in origin a lot like the j> Severus/James, Harry/Draco feuds. This makes sense, since Molly implies that she and Arhtur were at school after the previous Chamber incident, but before Hagrid became gamekeeper. j> I know this makes him pretty old to have his first child, but j> Narcissa could be a lot younger than him, Draco could have j> been an accident, he was too busy building up his position with j> Voldemort for all those years to worry about children, etc. Lots of j> possibilities. Okay, here's a wicked scenario: What if Draco was *adopted*, and his biological parents were... MUGGLES!! (Bwahahaha!) :) -- Dave From dicentra at xmission.com Thu Jun 20 00:31:22 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 00:31:22 -0000 Subject: TBAY: HP and the Superfluous Scene Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40082 Dicentra, having spent a few long weeks in the hold of the Big Bang, draining bilgewater and scrubbing the inner hull with her trusty toothbrush (Captain's orders), emerges on the deck of the destroyer and squints in the bright sunlight. Before her eyes adjust, she hears a commotion on the beach. She jumps off the deck into Theory Bay's cool waters and swims ashore. She sees a crowd of people surrounding what looks like a metal appliance, about 24" wide and deep, maybe 3 feet tall. Someone opens the bottom-hinged door and pulls out upper and lower wire racks. Someone else loads a bunch of dingy-looking can(n)ons onto the racks, shoves the racks back inside, and closes the door. A moment later, the machine begins to rumble and the crowd backs away. After a bright flash of light, the machine opens and the racks slide out, displaying shiny new can(n)ons, some in designs Dicentra has never seen. A few in the crowd buy the can(n)ons, others refuse. Someone who looks like a lobo pardo is passing out pamphlets titled "MAGIC DISHWASHER: The Summary." Dicentra takes a pamphlet and reads it, impressed by the LOONacy involved, but she has nothing to add or detract. Further up the beach, a youngish man with greying hair is handing out candy in one hand and drinking from a faintly smoking goblet with the other. "Not too bad-looking for a LYCANTHROPE," she thinks, but notices that he's already got a girlfriend: Pippin. She's tossing a hedgehog into the air and catching it. Ahead, there's another crowd standing around a kiosk in which someone is expounding another theory. It's Pip, and she's created a small diorama of the Graveyard Scene in GoF in exquisite detail. She's using it as a visual aid to present her argument. Dicentra stops to listen, and is even more impressed than with MAGIC DISHWASHER. But something is bothering Dicentra. These theories, and many that have come before, rely on a premise that is challenged only occasionally by David: everything JKR writes Means Something. Pippin argues, for example, that nothing is insignificant: "It's not as though there's a video of everything that happens in the Potterverse, and all Rowling does to create her novels is mentally play it back and write everything down just as it happened. Even if that's an imaginary exercise that Rowling performs as her first step, what ends up on the page is what Rowling means to tell us. Every sentence serves a purpose, whether it's to entertain, inform, persuade or confuse." (39968) Indeed, the complexities and "subversiveness" of MAGIC DISHWASHER and its as-yet-unnamed successor, LYCANTHROPE, and other theories are born when a reader focuses on details that seem insignificant and imbues them with significance. It's especially fun and impressive if the reader can connect these dots into a picture no one expected, one that contradicts utterly the common interpretation (as LYCANTHROPE does) or that adds levels of complexity not previously perceived (as does MAGIC DISHWASHER). But days before, as she huddled in the hold of the Big Bang, reading PoA by faint candlelight during her OSHA-mandated breaks, Dicentra came across a scene that struck her as useless. It doesn't appear to contribute anything to the rest of the story, either as a clue-pointer-outer, a character definer, a mood-setter, or even a red herring. The scene is in the middle of "Grim Defeat," right after Snape substitutes for Lupin and right before the Hufflepuff/Gryffindor Quidditch match where Harry sees the Grim and the Dementors knock him off his broom (page 173, Scholastic edition). Harry wakes up before dawn, thinking that the howling wind of the storm awoke him. But no, Peeves was floating above him, "blowing hard in his ear." He asks Peeves what the sam hill he was doing that for, but Peeves just cackles and blows himself out of the room. It's 4:30am, and Harry tries to go back to sleep, but the howling of the storm and probably game nerves prevent it. He gets up, gets dressed, and goes into the common room. On his way out, he stops Crooshanks from getting into the bedroom. He scolds the cat, saying there are other mice to chase, why doesn't he just leave Scabbers alone. He thinks that the Quidditch match won't be cancelled on account of the storm, and that Cedric Diggory is heavier than he is and will be less likely to be blown off course. He whiles away the hours before dawn, rising occasionally to stop Crookshanks, and when it seems like it's time for breakfast, goes down to get some grub. Sir Cadogan challenges him as he leaves and he tells him to shut up. In the main hall, he has some oatmeal, and the team shows up and talks about the day's game. OK. What in that scene was essential to the story? That there was a howling storm? It had been storming for days, so that much was already established. That Crookshanks is not after rodents in general but Scabbers in particular? That has also been established, not to mention the fact that a cat would rather go after known prey than find new stuff. There isn't anything unusual about Crookshanks trying to get Scabbers in that context. That the game won't be cancelled and he has to watch out for Diggory? That could easily have been covered in the following scene when the rest of the team shows up. Sir Cadogan's challenge? It's mildly entertaining but hardly essential. Does it tell us anything about Harry? Nope. We don't even know how he whiled away the hours before dawn. Is it really necessary for Harry to be up at that hour? Doesn't appear so, and he could have just as easily been awakened by nerves or the storm as by Peeves, who, it seems, is a purely superfluous element in this scene. The scene isn't even particularly evocative of any mood or sensation. It fails utterly to "entertain, inform, persuade, or confuse." So why is it there? Unless JKR is being paid by the word (and she isn't), there is no reason for this page and a half. She could just as easily have said, "Harry woke up and got to breakfast before the rest of the team the next morning. The wind was still howling as before, but Harry knew that Quidditch matches weren't cancelled on account of a storm." Then the team shows up and Wood tells Harry to watch for Diggory, along with the other stuff he said. Dicentra is tempted to take a black magic marker to the scene, but thinks better of it. Maybe there's someone else in the Bay who can show that it HAD to be there. She wanders off to see if Stoned!Harry wants to play hedgehog croquet in the meantime. --Dicentra, who wonders if there are more scenes like that in the series and what the implications are From kkearney at students.miami.edu Wed Jun 19 20:38:54 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 20:38:54 -0000 Subject: wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40083 Nik wrote: > Wands don't work in an all or nothing fashion. Does that make sense? >I'll explain... Harry is told that it is possible to use another >person's wand, but the results won't be as good as he would get with a >wand that has picked him. So it's not just a case of only being able >to use that one wand. If a wizard could use any wand (with varying >degrees of success), then couldn't there be more than one that would >work well for him/her. I think wands are something like certain types of clothing, such as evening gowns or bathing suits (sorry guys, I don't know what the most difficult type of clothing for men to buy is). In both of the above examples, it is physically possible to wear many styles. But there are very few specific dresses or bathing suits that compliment an individual. However, there are in most cases more than one dress/suit that would flatter a person. Wands, in my opinion, work the same way. One may have to "try on" several wands, as Harry did, before finding a suitable one. However, there are probably several other wands out there that could mesh with Harry's personality/ability/whatever-else-a-wand-looks-for. Also, certain people may have better "figures" (pardon the extended analogy), and have a much easier time finding a wand that fits well than other people. (Luckily, wizards are spared any wand faux pas since the wand chooses the wizard.) If this is true, Ron could easily use a passed down wand. It just doesn't fit as well as his own. Nik also wrote: > Another idea to consider - Do you think it is possible to "outgrow" >your wand? I'm assuming that the wand picks you based on the person >that you are at the time of purchase, but as your abilities grow and >change, could the wand becomes less effective? Perhaps this explains >why Percy replaced a perfectly good wand. Interesting idea. I had always assumed wands wear out as time passes. I don't have my books on hand, but didn't Ron have Charlie's old wand? If so, perhaps the wand was not in good enough shape to trust against dragons, but would be fine for a first year student. However, needing a new wand due to changing abilities perhaps makes more sense. -Corinth From ironysquared at aol.com Wed Jun 19 20:40:24 2002 From: ironysquared at aol.com (nightlysparks) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 20:40:24 -0000 Subject: Symbols next to Characters' Names -Meanings? +Wizard Bloodlines In-Reply-To: <000e01c216cf$33a3a840$363d68d5@jody> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40084 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Jedi Knight Jo" wrote: > > Wow. You must have really really good eyesight to have seen all of them. I tried when it was on but I couldn't see very much. I cheated, I used TiVo. > >>After that, there are symbols of stars, one plain, one in a circle, and an "N" in a square. > I thought they were supposed to represent how powerful they were >for JK's reference? That wouldn't necessarily mean that the symbols >stood for their pureness (or not) of blood, would it? They might stand for power, I'm not sure. The basis of my argument was by categorizing all the people with the same symbol next to them (i.e. both Hermione and Justin Finch-Fletchly have the N with a square...both are Muggles.) However, since we can't see that second page (and it's so temptingly partially there!) I don't know. Power does seem like a good idea though. >> on the blood front though, how pure is Harry? His mum and dad were a witch >and a wizard, but his mum was Muggle-born, so does that make him >pure-blood or half-blood? I was wondering about this as well. Is Harry considered a pure-blood because both his parents are wizards, or not because Lily has Muggle roots? What exactly does "pure-blood" entail? Certainly if you can trace lineage far back, and there are *only* wizards in the lineage, it is (and rare), but what about Ernie McMillian? - For example, in CoS, he said he could trace his lineage back for 9 generations of witches and wizards. Does this mean that before that, a wizard married a muggle, and created wizard offspring who married witches? Or was it simply that's as far back as Ernie could trace? Ernie claims he's a pure blood, so does Ron (and Molly Weasley has a 2nd cousin who's an accountant). So apparently there could be Muggles in a wizard ancestry, but is there a limit on how many and / or how far back they are? Any other ideas on this would be welcome. -Emily nightlysparks From lav at tut.by Wed Jun 19 21:39:25 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 00:39:25 +0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Spying Game Part II In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <863948379.20020620003925@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 40085 Greetings! > Gray wolf wrote: g> His DEs know he's once again powerful, know he can touch g> Harry, and know he can make Harry flee. He looks like the g> old wizard he once was. And, as soons as one of them adds g> one and one, they will realize that the Pirori Incantatem g> effect was a stupid coincidence, and they will get g> Voldemort a new wand so he can kill the brat. I disagree here. In PS/SS, Harry faced Voldemort in weak state, and won, but was left unconscious. In CoS, Harry again faced Voldemort, in Tom Riddle's state (not weakened, but not trained fully either), and won, but was left battered down. In GoF, Harry faced fully recovered Voldemort after being weakened, wounded and tormented (and his defence removed), and Harry escaped, taking a dead body with him (ya, he even had time to carry away a dead body - didn't want to leave without a gift ;) Harry is actually doing better all the time - it can be seen quite clearly. g> Not only that: this time, the face off between Voldemort g> and Harry hsn't finished in Voldemort's defeat, but in a g> draw of sorts (although I can tell you that the side that g> flees the battlefield is generally accepted as the g> defeated party). Hmm... have you studied the theories of Sea Control? If we have a country that controls the sea, and country that attempts to gain such control, the war is inevitable. If this war is "hot" (that is, the conflict is resolved by military means), then goals of the sides are as follows: 1. Country that controls the sea *must win* to prove that it is still the leader. 2. Country that contests the control of the sea *must not lose* to prove that old leader fails to maintain the control. That was described in mid-XIXth century. These truths didn't change until now, even though the idea of "Sea Control" has changed (for modern world, it's communication control). The problem is, if you fail to destroy your new opponent, you show your inability to do so. In the next battle you will have much worse chances. That's what Voldemort did - he failed to win the duel with Harry. Duel, which was organized by Voldemort, and he himself did his followers know this. So now DE's know for sure that Voldemort cannot kill Harry even if he is the one to shuffle the deck. I cannot consider this a loss for Harry's side - there will be a lot of hard thinking for DE's - do they really need to stay on Voldie's side, if he is a sucker? >> First, there is no such thing as "absolute defence". g> Well, there's where we differ. I'm basing my thoughts on g> the fact that Voldemort has, indeed, almost managed the g> "perfect" defence. If he manages to become inmortal, g> there's not a d*mned thing anyone can do to win him. Nope. Every time he dies, he becomes weaker. More DE's are caught, less chances to get Harry's blood. Also there's only a limited supply of father's bones and servant's hands... ;) g> It's not going to happen, though, because he has made g> mistakes, and in the end those mistakes will outweight g> the mistakes Dumbledore has done. Now *that*'s metathinking. ;) >> Second, no matter what defence Voldie comes up with, >> Harry is the most probable person to crack it open. g> Your second point is metathinking, so I'm not going to g> comment too much on it. From Voldemort's point of view, g> Harry is a dangerour opponent, but Dumbledore is still g> the main enemy he has. And indeed, his defenses will be g> attacked by Dumbledore, even if it's by using Harry, at g> least for a few books. I don't really expect Harry to g> start taking command of things until he's 17. Disagreed here. My second point is obvious for everyone in Potterverse who is of importance in the conflict (that is, to Dumbledore, Voldemort, DE's and Harry). As for Harry taking responsibility, well, I wouldn't be the least surprised if he will start taking it in OoP. After all, he is already 14, and will be 15 soon. Given his upbringing, he is effectively an adult person (actually, he is already incredibly adult in PS, and already a natural leader and capable to take responsibility for others). >> Third, with Harry dead, research for immortality can be >> performed in much more comfortable situation. g> I agree that taking care of Harry would make things much g> easier for Dumbledore, but you can say that of any enemy. True, but Harry is not "any enemy". Harry is the personal enemy, the bullet with the name "Voldemort" on it. Yes, it is Dumbledore who still provides the safe cover and clever planning, but with time going by, Harry learns more and more of it, and he's learning damn fast. Voldemort is absolutely right in aiming his attack on Harry. Power of Dumbledore is unlikely to increase with time (rather the other way around, given his age). Harry, on the other side, is becoming more and more dangerous with each day passing. It is Harry who is the main threat at present time. Harry, not Dumbledore. g> I've mentioned in another post that I'm waiting to see g> how JKR evades the question of Voldemort using his old g> inmortality spells again, since they *did* work, even if g> with some unexpected results... Let him try to. He will just lose the time he could spend more creatively (trying to kill Harry, for example ;) >> So, Voldemort does *not* know how long will his quest for >> immortality take. At the same time he knows for sure how >> much time Harry needs to get to the height of his powers: >> 3 years in Hogwarts. g> He was willing to face Dumbledore in the height of his g> powers before the AK accident. Why would he suddenly turn g> coward, and not face Harry? Two sentences, two mistakes. Voldemort never dared to face Dumbledore. And I didn't say Voldemort shouldn't face Harry - in fact I was defending completely opposite point of view. >> Voldemort had all the necessary information to make the >> correct decision. So it was just what it was: a mistake >> on his part. The mistake that will bring his doom. g> And that's where MAGIC DISHWASHER kicks in: he hadn't, in g> fact, all the *correct* information. (...) The dishwasher g> theory states that, in fact, the potion was flawed and g> that his body is not as good as the old one. But he g> doesn't know, because that's what the war is all about. g> There has been a decisive victory in the information war, g> as well as in the physical one: Voldemort took the wrong g> potion. And THAT will bring his doom. Even if Harry had g> been killed in the graveyard, Dumbledore would have had g> the pieces in place for the chackmate. Harry is his g> chess-queen, the most powerful piece, but his other g> pieces are still waiting. I disagree completely. If Voldemort kills Harry at the graveyard, *even* if the potion was indeed flawed (which still has to be proven), then Dumbledore is at a loss. If Harry escapes, even if potion is ok, Voldemort is at a loss. The key of the graveyard scene is not potion, but Harry (as always, this little brat is the key figure ;). You suppose that even if Harry dies, Voldemort will still lose because of flawed potion. For me, this sounds like "Even if we lose Paris, we will still endanger the enemy flank". Only when the flank is endangered, the Paris is lost and the war is over... You consider Harry to be the chess queen in this party? Right you are. But queens are not sacrificed in mittelspiel to win a knight or a bishop. They are sacrificed in the endspiel to declare a checkmate, if they are sacrificed at all. If you provide me with an explanation on how Dumbledore can win *quickly*, *decisively* and *reliably* after losing Harry at the end of GoF, I will believe your theory immediately. But not until then. gw>>> Can we count you in as a convinced listee, then? >> Count me a convicted listee, whatever this means. ;) g> Convicted? I hope that was a typo :-) (ROTFL) A typo indeed... well, consider me both. ;) Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, who is wondering when he will leave that moderated state, given that no letters were rejected for last 4 months... Wednesday, June 19, 2002, 23:49 local time (GMT+2:00) From suzchiles at pobox.com Thu Jun 20 00:38:37 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 17:38:37 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: wands In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40086 corinthm wrote: > I think wands are something like certain types of clothing, such as > evening gowns or bathing suits (sorry guys, I don't know what the most > difficult type of clothing for men to buy is). In both of the above > examples, it is physically possible to wear many styles. But there > are very few specific dresses or bathing suits that compliment an > individual. However, there are in most cases more than one dress/suit > that would flatter a person. Based on my experience as a fountain pen enthusiast, I think fountain pens offer another good analogy. Fountain pen nibs, which are usually made of 12K or 14K gold in a good pen, gradually yield to the writer's hand and style. For the owner-writer, the pen works perfectly; when another writer would use the pen, it is quite likely that the pen will scratch or skip. The end result is the same: the writer can use the pen to write down words. But the pen only works perfectly for the owner and not as well for others. Zo From marilyn at gtf.org Thu Jun 20 00:54:03 2002 From: marilyn at gtf.org (jedi102580) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 00:54:03 -0000 Subject: Unforgivables/Harry's middle name In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40087 grey_wolf wrote: > IIRC, JKR stated in an interview (check the goat's webpage if you > want the hard canon) that Harry's middle name was "James, of course". Not to be anal, but she said, to "Does Harry have a middle name?," "Yep, James after his dad." You're probably thinking of the quotation of her response to which house Lily is in, in which she says, "she was in Gryffindor (naturally)." [from http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm] -- marilyn From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu Jun 20 01:12:18 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 01:12:18 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Not_While_I=92m_a_Hound_(filk)?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40088 Not While I'm a Hound (To the tune of Not While I'm Around, from Sondheim's Sweeney Todd) Dedicated to Ellen Anglin Hear a MIDI at: http://www.broadwaymidi.com/shows/sweeney_todd.html THE SCENE: Pomfrey's infirmary. We discover Harry, in and out of sleep, once more convalescing following a traumatic encounter with Dark Powers. Sirius, in the form of PADFOOT, stands guard over him. Sensing Harry's restlessness, PADFOOT sings him a lullaby. PADFOOT Nothing's gonna harm you Not while I'm a hound Nothing's gonna harm you No, sir Not while I'm a hound DEs are prowling Everywhere Causing hurt I'll just start growling I'm aware And alert No one will attack you No one's gonna dare You've got Sirius Black who'll Make `em scurry. Whistle, I'll be there Wizards who'll hex you With their worst Evil curse I'll reverse Nothing can harm you Not while I'm a hound Cave canem, I will ban `em Do they think I will slumber supine? That won't occur Not with this cur You're now aligned with this ol' canine Not to worry, Son . Prongs, my old pal, you would be proud If you only knew How your son fought brave and unbowed He's so much like you, Your son .. Nothing's going to harm you Not while I'm a hound Nothing's going to harm you, Harry For I'll stand my ground. Darkness is rising Once again In full force They will flee fast if A mastiff Stays their course No one's gonna vex you None will take that chance Dark Lords may perplex you Not to worry I will take my stance Wizards who'll hex you With their worst Evil curse I'll reverse Nothing's gonna harm you Not while I'm a hound (Harry falls into a deep sleep as the song ends. Iris out on PADFOOT, maintaining a vigilant watch.) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From chetah27 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 20 01:12:53 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 01:12:53 -0000 Subject: Hagrid the Betrayer/ Hagrid, the one who can't handle his job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40089 I wrote: > ~Aldrea (I think Hagrid deserves an acronym supporting him. Even > Snape has one[actually, I think there are several], for crying out > loud! =P) Darrin replied: >I'm on the case! >SAVE HAGRID FROM COMPLETE DISRESPECT! >Should Albus and Voldemort Epic Hurtle Against Goodness, Remember: >Indomitable Determination From Rubeus and Olympe May Contribute >Outstandingly to Master Potter's Lasting Efforts To Eliminate >Darkness. Indeed, Stalwart Rubeus' Enormous Strength and Power Ends >Conflict Totally! >Darrin -- >I don't hzve a job. I just sit in the dark, coming up with acronyms> Lol, great! I've looked at some at Inish Alley and the ones people come up with really amaze me. I suppose they're the other people that sit in the dark and word on acronyms. =P Darrin also said: >And Aldrea (great name, by the way) wrote:> Thankies. It's not my real name(perhaps I should start signing with that, alot of people around here do...), it's from a book series. I doubt anyone here would know the series, though. *grins at Kat, who does* Darrin: >I've said that Hagrid could end up being the unintentional betrayer in this coming battle, but I also believe he will end up heroic -- perhaps dying a heroic death. More than any other adult in Harry's world, I don't expect Hagrid to be alive at the end of Book 7.> I've heard this before, and people mostly seem to be basing this on Dumbledore's "I would trust Hagrid with my life" statement. I think Dumbledore's trust in Hagrid might come into play(heck, the Giant thing could be where it comes into play)...but I don't know if Hagrid will die. I can very well see the possibilities, and the one you pointed out does seem the most obvious for Hagrid's character. Ah, well, perhaps I'm just letting the fact that I don't want Hagrid to die getting in the way. I've always thought he'd end up something like Frank Bryce, puttering around the Hogwarts grounds until he dies. *grins* *reads Jenny's post on Hagrid's teaching and mutters something about Jenny and her good arguements...darn her!* =P Jenny, quoting me wrote: >> Hagrid completely lost his confidence, he had wanted to make a fun class, so he tried something exciting for his frist lesson- when Draco screwed that up, he just went completely backwards. Exciting was too dangerous, he should stick to boring and safeness. He stopped putting the kids in "danger" when he went to flobberworms [snip[>> >That is exactly the problem, IMO. If I was a parent of a Hogwarts student, I certainly would not want my child to study the same unchallenging thing every day for most of the term. *As* a teacher, I would suffer serious consequences if I taught the way Hagrid did in PoA. If he lost his confidence, he should turn in his curriculum and let someone else do the teaching.> I don't think Hagrid was quite ready to turn in the towel yet, though. We were shown how ecstatic he was at being made a teacher, and I suppose he might have felt foolish for giving up after one lesson. But I don't blame Hagrid for switching to flobberworms at all. He tried hippogriffs, a dangerous animal(though I'm sure he didn't realize it *grins*) and Draco got attacked. Draco then goes to his father about it, and tries to get Hagrid fired. I'm sure his dad has lost -some- sayso since the CoS incident, so it seems the most he could do was to get Buckbeak brought to trial. And I'm sure that Hagrid hadn't forgotten what had happened when Lucius had gotten involved in school matters the last time, and he just decided to take the safe way and tone his class down- alot. Jenny: >If I lost my confidence every time I had a run-in with a student, I would have been fired a few weeks into my first teaching position - and I would have deserved it.> IIRC, Hagrid was able to control Draco the next time he hinted at starting something in his class. I forget exactly where, but I know I remember Hagrid calling Draco on his antics and shutting the little brat up. Hagrid learned something from his mistake. Jenny: >A number of members here have mentioned that one of Hagrid's problems is that, even though he is an adult, he is not quite as developed as one. I agree and see that as a serious flaw in Hagrid's character.> There's a number of adult characters that are also not quite developed- Snape, Sirius, Lupin, and some have even said Dumbledore himself. Jenny: >Aside from the Norbert incident in SS, Harry and Co. have listened to Hagrid blubber in PoA and helped talk him into facing Hogwarts after Rita Skeeter's article was printed. Once again, if my students had to constantly give *me* support and advice, my principal and assistant principal would encourage me to transfer to another school.> Hagrid doesn't really see the Trio as being students outside of the classroom, he sees them as good friends. He had some hardships, and he got some advice from some friends. It's not as if Hagrid was blubbering away while talking about flobberworms- he was doing so in the confines of his own household and with good friends. Jenny: >Here's what I think: the fact that the Trio even *once* helped sober up Hagrid is too much.> I don't recall it ever being stated that Hagrid was actually drunk. All the times I remember the Trio helping Hagrid was when he had been crying/upset about something and then it being mentioned about him drinking- but never drunk. I do remember Hermione taking a glass away from him, but I'd always though that she didn't think Hagrid should be drinking at all in the state he was in. Jenny: >I'm not even a parent (but may be one some day) but I keep thinking about if my child told me about the drunk groundskeeper and how he had to have his face stuffed in a barrel of water to clear his head.> Well, if I'm remembering the scene correctly, Hagrid dunking his head could have been to sober him up emotionally as much as to sober him up physically. >--jenny from ravenclaw, whose mom also doesn't like Hagrid - so there!> ~Aldrea, whose mom doesn't even read HP so has no idea how she feels about Hagrid. But also, who is not in any way trying to get Jenny to like Hagrid(that is so obviously an up-Mount-Everest battle), but feels that if you're not going to like him you should have more basis than Draco being a brat or something Hagrid didn't even do(like giving Rita dirt on Harry or blaming Hagrid for making his teaching dangerous). From chetah27 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 20 07:00:28 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 07:00:28 -0000 Subject: So, why did Snape turn on Voldemort? (And go to Dumbledore?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40090 Darrin: >And earlier on page 300 of SS, Dumbledore says: "Well, they did rather detest each other. Not unlike yourself and Mr. Malfoy. And then, your father did something Snape could never forgive." He saved Severus' life. They hated each other prior to the Prank. Perhaps the hatred is as simple as Harry and Draco. They got off on the wrong foot, have naturally different ideas about wizardry in general, and are headed down different paths. I dislike the idea of it being that simple, but... perhaps it could be.> Hmm...I don't think it's qutie that simple either. I don't know how Young!Snape compares, but I've never seen any huge likenesses in Snape and Draco other than their hatred of Harry and Slytherin-ness. Someone made an excellent post tearing up Draco a few weeks back, and I wish I would have saved it... But anways, I've always held Snape in much higher regard than Draco. Perhaps he was very much like Draco, though, when Hogwarts started for him- except smarter. We don't really know enough of James' character to know if he was alot like his son, though. It's reasonable to think he was, but also that he wasn't. Harry hasn't had the normal wizard upbringing, and as far as we can assume, James did- which could set up differences in their characters. Snape calls James arrogant on a number of instances. Snape does get carried away, but he usually has some truth in his accusations(i.e.- he talks about Harry breaking the rules whenever he can. Not quite true, but Harry does bend/break many rules when he has to.). James could very well have had a somewhat large head(not big enough to be egotistical, just enough to where it maybe gave him [or other people?] neck pains). I'm going to have to look through the books, but I think the worst Snape accuses James of is The Prank- is there any mention of previous incidents, of Snape talking about how the Mauraders bullied him or anything? I don't think there is. I think it was just a great dislike, "not unlike" Draco and Harry. And then after the Prank, it was utter hatred- like we see between Sirius and Snape. I think Draco's dislike has already gone to hatred with all the many deeds Harry has accomplished in his 4 years- or actually, maybe it fully graduated into hatred at the end of GoF. Rochelle: >Being an object or ridicule during one's adolescnece can very well result in his or her becoming bitter, spiteful and suspicious indefinitely. For some people, the scars just don't heal.> *grins* This description reminds me very much of a certain Potions master we all know and...probably don't love. =P But I think it's very possible that the Mauraders managed to offend Snape very deeply in some way. Something along the lines of James seriously and majorly publicly embarassing Snape, and Snape running off in tears yelling "You'll pay for this Potter, and you're little son too!" ;) I also think it'd be very interesting to find out exactly WHO started it. Did Snape offend someone James knew and liked? Or did James offend Snape by calling him a greasy slimeball? Or did they both just sort of have a falling out, like Malfoy and Harry did- a misunderstanding tha led them to see the differences in their characters? Hmm... Darrin: I think a closer answer than ambition is the fact that Snape correctly sniffed out which side is the winning side. It really could be that simple. Snape figured out that he had a better chance of attaining power -- and staying alive and out of Azkaban -- if he switched sides. Dumbledore didn't buy it for a second at first, but Snape convinced him through some act. Ooh, I see a possible Snape scenario, then. Snape gets put into a position where Dumbledore's trust is at stake, but also the other tempting path is one of ambition and sure power(where he won't need Dumbledore's trust)- which does he choose?!? Ah, no, that's just fun speculation. I really don't see how Snape can go back to Voldemort. Voldemort is probably a little bit smarter than to accept a man back who's been under Dumbedore's wing for a good 10+ years. I don't know, thinking like that just makes me wonder even more what the deed Snape did the night Harry faced Voldemort in GoF. But I think TooAmbitiousToSettleForDE!Snape is sort of ruled out by Marina's excellent point: >No, given what Voldemort does to traitors, I seriously doubt that Snape would turn on him just because he hoped that fifty years down the line he'd get to be the guy who makes the pre-dinner speech at the Sorting Feast every year.> Nope, I have to say Snape has a conscience. He is, undoubtedly,a Mean Ugly Schnook...but he has a conscience, and that's what gets him. Darrin: >My own theory is that Snape hates the situation he's found himself in. All things considered, he'd rather be a Death Eater, hanging out with former Slytherins. BUT... he had that pesky life debt thing to James, so he maybe tipped Dumbledore off that James was a target, never dreaming that Voldemort would go kablooey when he attacked the Potters.> Well, it has been implied(by Dumbledore himself, even) that Snape was playing spy for his team before the Potter thing. I've always had the idea that Snape was sitting around and hearing the word Potter, perks up like Vernon did and says "What? Potter? What was that?" He therefore works extra hard, finds out the Potters are in danger, and informs Dumbledore- but that just isn't enough, even with his help the Potters still get themselves blown up. Poor over-worked Snape.. =P ~Aldrea (I'm still 6 pages behind, so sorry if people are tired of this discussion- I'm pulling up the things ya'll said from last weekend to haunt you, mwaha!) From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Jun 20 07:34:35 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 07:34:35 -0000 Subject: Spying Game Part II In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40091 I don't have time right now to address (or even fully read) this thread, but this just jumped to my eyes. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > > So, Voldemort does *not* know how long will his quest for > > immortality take. At the same time he knows for sure how > > much time Harry needs to get to the height of his powers: 3 > > years in Hogwarts. > > He was willing to face Dumbledore in the height of his powers before the AK accident. Why would he suddenly turn coward, and not face Harry? > Actually, it is specifically said, a number of times, that Voldemort did NOT dare to face Dumbledore. Naama From rvotaw at i-55.com Thu Jun 20 03:09:05 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 22:09:05 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's blood/Lily Potter (was Re: The Spying Game Part II - I want you to DIE, Mr Potter.) References: Message-ID: <014601c21807$d6b63be0$8fa2cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 40092 From: grey_wolf_c -------------------------- Richelle asked: > however, this is something Voldemort "thought up" himself, could he > have needed Harry's blood for another reason? A reason, say, he > didn't want even his followers to know about? Is this possible? Or > has my imagination gotten carried away? > Your last question implies that Voldemort needed Harry's blood for some other reason besides the potion. I find that unlikely, since he used it all in the potion. If he had wanted, he could've told Peter to keep some for later use. He didn't have to explain, just order, but he didn't. Hmm, let me rephrase my question. I find it hard to believe that Voldemort's greatest foe is a fourteen year old wizard in training. Possible, I suppose, but what about Dumbledore? The only wizard Voldemort fears? Could it possibly have been any harder to get at him than Harry? Harry was practically under lock and key the entire time. And it took, what, nine months to get him? I think there's more to it than meets the eye. There's got to be something about Lily Potter's past. I wouldn't believe for a second that she was in Gryffindor, except for the fact that J.K. Rowling said so--though not in a book, but in a Scholastic author chat. I can't see why she'd lie about it. I had a great theory worked out until I read that. :) Still, there's something not right there . . . have I missed something about Lily's parents? Could she possibly be only half sister to Aunt Petunia? Am I way off target here? And most of all, why did Voldemort hesitate to kill Lily Potter? Can't quite fathom that he has a soft spot for women. There's a missing link here somewhere. Richelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Erikzamora at hotmail.com Thu Jun 20 05:28:00 2002 From: Erikzamora at hotmail.com (eriktz) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 05:28:00 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts population Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40093 So I am very excited to be coming up with what I hope is an original thought. I have read the FAQ about population size and all that. Well, I think I have found some canonical evidence for a small population. I was rereading Chamber of Secrets and on their first morning back at Hogwarts the mail comes and it says: "...there was a rushing sound overhead and a *hundred* or so owls streamed in..." Do you think it is reasonable to assume that if there were a thousand or so students at Hogwarts only 100 or so owls would be delivering mail on the first day? Actually, as i type this I am wondering if that does make sense. I mean, they have only been gone for a day how many parents are that crazy that they would be sending mail everyday. Well, I am just throwing that out there. Another thing just occured to me. Why does the mail at Hogwarts arrive every morning, when it seems at other times the mail comes at just about anytime anywhere? Do you think Hogwarts monitors all the owls coming in and only allows them to deliver at specific times as not to disturb class? erik From crana at ntlworld.com Thu Jun 20 09:09:05 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 10:09:05 +0100 Subject: Symbols Next the Characters Names - Harry's Middle Name - the Evans sisters - Nitwit etc - Homoeroticism References: <20020618202526.83361.qmail@web20910.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00cf01c2183a$217b6560$43b068d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40094 Rowen said: "It seems kind of silly to me for JKR to waste space on that little piece of paper indicating if they were a boy or girl. You probably could tell that from the name, methinks." Would have been useful for Professor Sinistra! -------------------- Random monkey said: "Incidentally, does anyone know if Harry has a middle name?" I'm pretty sure it says somewhere his middle name is James, after his dad. Ooh - I've just noticed something: Lily and Petunia, both flowers.. ok, that's not very significant. And I don't know if it has been discussed.. but is it significant that Crookshanks has bandy legs? (mentioned more than once in PoA I think).. because his name reflects that too.. Crook as in crooked (or ill, if you're Australian).. and Shanks means legs... Hm! --------------------- Random monkey said: "Even more intriguing: Would Priori Incantem come out? If so, how? Shadows of shadows? Then again, weren't some of the spells not spit out (ex. Harry's AK)?" I think they didn't come out because Harry broke the golden cage-thing before they could. I think it says somewhere that if he had let it go on long enough it would have spat out all the dead Muggles, etc, etc. ---------------------- Brin: "Hey all. I actually managed to think of something that nobody's posted before as far as I know: it just occurred to me that Nitwit, Blubber, Oddment and Tweak are either secret nicknames of the founders, or - get this - the Marauders of Dumbledore's youth, him being one! Would anyone like to comment on that?" I just thought they were random words that sounded interesting... I suppose your theory is possible.. although I am not sure why Dumbledore would say them? Do you have any ideas on that? -------------------------------------------- Rochelle said: "From the "easily ignored" category, we have the thing that Harry would "sorely miss" [p.463] which, of course, turned out to be Ron [p.498] Granted, this is innocent enough; Harry IS ron's closest friend. But especially when given the fact that two of the other three competitors had to rescue their girlfriends/dance dates (Krum had to save Hermione; Cedric had to save Cho), the homoerotic subtext here isn't that hard to find." Well.. Harry doesn't have a girlfriend, and I can't see him missing Parvatti above anyone else.. He can't have Hermione as a hostage, since she is being rescued by Krum, and even though he fancies Cho, she is also already being rescued by someone else. I think it is to show how important friendship is (remember, Harry thought it would be his broomstick, and he learnt more about the value of friendship through this.. and remember when Hermione is trying to convince Harry and Ron to talk to each other again? "He misses you... and I know you miss him" or something along those lines). Harry and Ron are best mates, yes Hermione is an essential part of the trio, but as Harry says somewhere, she just isn't as fun to be with as Ron. Maybe I'm missing it, but I think the subtext is friendship, not homoeroticism. and "3)Tom Riddle's "hungry eyes" in CoS [p.309, 311]. Okay, so maybe looking at someone "hungrily" means something completely different in England than it usually does in the States (though I doubt it). And yes, if you try, you can just brush it off. But nonetheless, we've got some pretty blatant homoerotic subtext going on." Aren't his eyes "hungry" because he is longing to have Harry dead? Yes, you can say "hungry eyes" in that sense in England, but it means longing greatly for *anything*, not just one particular thing. ")CoS, pages 285-286 where Percy goes to great lengths to keep Ginny from telling anyone what she caught him doing. All right, so it turns out that he was kissing his new girlfriend [p.341]. But up until that gets revealed, you know very well what you THOUGHT he was doing! ;) " I thought he was doing something connected with the CoS - what did you think he was doing? :S ------ Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lav at tut.by Thu Jun 20 09:37:38 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:37:38 +0300 Subject: Dead Basilisk Message-ID: <5125574521.20020620123738@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 40095 Greetings! I wonder, was it discussed, or noticed, that there is still a dead basilisk lying in the Chamber of Secrets, with lots of poisonous teeth in his jaws (can be removed quite easily, considering that the teeth in Harry arm had broken). Actually, a whole damn supply of super-weapons for anybody who knows how to get there... Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, always happy to throw weird ideas into community. Thursday, June 20, 2002, 12:35 local time (GMT+2:00) From ftah3 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 20 12:18:22 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:18:22 -0000 Subject: Dead Basilisk; and ancient construction In-Reply-To: <5125574521.20020620123738@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40096 Alexander wrote: > I wonder, was it discussed, or noticed, that there is > still a dead basilisk lying in the Chamber of Secrets, with > lots of poisonous teeth in his jaws (can be removed quite > easily, considering that the teeth in Harry arm had broken). > > Actually, a whole damn supply of super-weapons for anybody > who knows how to get there... True, but could anyone get there who is not a parselmouth? Myrtle said that the tap which is the entrance to the Chamber had never worked - so it hadn't worked for at *least* 50 years. One might think that the school would have tried to fix a broken tap, but if so, never managed to get it working. Perhaps they were unable to open it up to check for clogs or replace pipes, maybe because the *only* way to open it is to use parseltongue; impervious to magic and physical assault otherwise, possibly. On the other hand, I've been wondering about that tap in Myrtle's bathroom, wondering how a modern sink tap managed to be the entrance of a Chamber created and sealed and never opened prior to Tom Riddle since Salazar Slytherin's day a thousand years ago (did I get the time frame right? No books at hand). I didn't think they had indoor plumbing back then.... Mahoney From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Jun 20 12:25:03 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:25:03 -0000 Subject: Dead Basilisk In-Reply-To: <5125574521.20020620123738@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40097 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > Greetings! > > I wonder, was it discussed, or noticed, that there is > still a dead basilisk lying in the Chamber of Secrets, with > lots of poisonous teeth in his jaws (can be removed quite > easily, considering that the teeth in Harry arm had broken). > I've always assumed that it's Basilisk skin, shed the way all snakes shed their skin. Naama From lav at tut.by Thu Jun 20 12:48:05 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:48:05 +0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dead Basilisk; and ancient construction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <731242553.20020620154805@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 40098 Greetings! f> Mahoney wrote: f> True, but could anyone get there who is not a f> parselmouth? Myrtle said that the tap which is the f> entrance to the Chamber had never worked - so it hadn't f> worked for at *least* 50 years. One might think that the f> school would have tried to fix a broken tap, but if so, f> never managed to get it working. Perhaps they were unable f> to open it up to check for clogs or replace pipes, maybe f> because the *only* way to open it is to use parseltongue; f> impervious to magic and physical assault otherwise, f> possibly. Agreed that only a parselmough can enter. Actually, this thought had entered my brain ~10 seconds after I sent my letter... ;) So, there's a supply of melee weapons for Harry and Voldie. Still nice. ;) f> On the other hand, I've been wondering about that tap in f> Myrtle's bathroom, wondering how a modern sink tap f> managed to be the entrance of a Chamber created and f> sealed and never opened prior to Tom Riddle since Salazar f> Slytherin's day a thousand years ago (did I get the time f> frame right? No books at hand). I didn't think they had f> indoor plumbing back then.... AFAIK this question is somewhere among the unexplained questions of the same kind, somewhere deep in HP Lexicon. My personal view is that the castle is... well... magical, and it may adapt to more modern techniques. Consider the room with chamber pots Dumbledore found (if it was not a joke) - such a room couldn't exist 1000 years ago either, when the castle was built. But I care little for the tap, I'm more interested in Basilisk's teeth. ;) n> Naama wrote: n> I've always assumed that it's Basilisk skin, shed the way n> all snakes shed their skin. There is a shed skin, true, but there's also a dead basilisk, killed by Harry, mouth full of razor-sharp poisonous teeth. The body of basilisk was never removed from the Chamber (such enterprise would require Harry's assistance to get into the Chamber, and all events with Harry we know about). So it's still lying there near the wall, at the feet of Salazar's statue. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, always happy to throw weird ideas into community. Thursday, June 20, 2002, 15:40 local time (GMT+2:00) From lav at tut.by Thu Jun 20 13:00:15 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:00:15 +0300 Subject: How To Kill An Immortal Message-ID: <1111972247.20020620160015@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 40099 Greetings! Given all this late discussion on the subject of how to kill the immortal Voldemort (AKA Voldemmortal ;) Actually, this problem is long solved (somewhere in 1995) by a Russian science fiction author. His book was never translated into English (this particular one), so no big surprise nobody have read it but me. So, what we have is the resurrection-type immortality (whenever we kill Voldemmortal, he resurrects again). In the Russian book, situation was even more difficult: resurrection happened NOT at the place of death, and the resurrected person enjoyed full resurrection (without any stupid vapour forms). Such a person still can be killed. Not in a physical sense, though. The only way to kill such a person is to drive him insane, to make him live not in the real world, but in the world of his illusions (ah, and the book's name is "Emperors of Illusions", btw ;). Potterverse has all the necessary means for such enterprise. The only problem is that these means exist not in the Wizarding World, but in Muggle World - that is, the psychological techniques available in late XX-th century. Yes, yes, I know this is even more evil than putting poor guy Voldie into eternal imprisonment in his vapour form. But this is much more reliable. Insane Voldemmortal is no longer dangerous but to those who try to contact him (that is, to those persons who would try to resque him in case of imprisoned Vapourmort). Still, I stick to the idea that true immortality (unaging, resurrection, restoration) is impossible in the Potterverse. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, always happy to throw weird ideas into community. Thursday, June 20, 2002, 15:48 local time (GMT+2:00) P.S. Two terms introduced in this letter: 1. Voldemmortal - Voldemort who has achieved immortality (never yet existed in the books). 2. Vapourmort - Voldemort in his vapour form. From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Thu Jun 20 13:18:22 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 09:18:22 -0400 Subject: The unforgivability of curses Message-ID: <4D2D40D1.70F3C8E7.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40100 We have had discussion on and off as to what causes the Unforgivable Curses to be so named. I think it may not be that they uniquely share some special characteristic of 'unforgivability', rather just that the phrase is a MOM designation for three spells associated in the public mind with dark magic. For one thing, they were permitted for use by Aurors, and Moody (as he is supposed to be) is permitted to try Imperio on his pupils. So it seems unlikely that as spells per se they have an irrevocable effect on the caster. We don't know if Snape ever used them in his DE days: if so, he seems to have been forgiven. It is worth asking whether the unforgivable nature of these curses is the flip side of the free and easy way that other spells, such as memory charms, are used with gay abandon. Perhaps, if these curses were not put in a special category that takes them out of the discourse about spells generally, then the WW would be less unwilling to examine the morality of these lesser spells. Perhaps that is part of Dumbledore's agenda in allowing them to be demonstrated in lessons: to show that the only thing special about them is their taboo status. 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 coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu Jun 20 13:48:15 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 13:48:15 -0000 Subject: DISHWASHER, DISHWASHER (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40101 DISHWASHER, DISHWASHER (to the tune of Matchmaker, Matchmaker, from Fiddler on the Roof) Dedicated to Pip, Grey Wolf & Mariner THE SCENE: Office of the Headmaster. Dumbledore has borrowed the mysterious MAGIC DISHWASHER from Arthur Weasley, and ? after adding a half cup of powdered Cascade ? chants the ancient and powerful invocation printed below to unleash its irresistible power. DUMBLEDORE DISHWASHER, DISHWASHER, grant me my wish Make Voldemort swim with the fish Dishwasher, dishwasher, screen me a scene How to re-bod him, capiche? DISHWASHER, DISHWASHER, I need no hex Spy me a game ultra-complex Cue Rubik's Cube, or maybe Rube Goldberg With a dash of Spielberg. That Peter, let him escape here Through Harry, who will spare him from harm And on the scene we'll have Snape here Who'll be blustering with bogus alarm DISHWASHER, DISHWASHER, plots we now hatch Potions they'll brew, Dark Lord we'll catch Take away every choice he has but bone So he then will be overthrown! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From lee.farley at ntlworld.com Thu Jun 20 13:57:26 2002 From: lee.farley at ntlworld.com (LD) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:57:26 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dead Basilisk; and ancient construction In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c21862$69cab870$55e86bd5@quack> No: HPFGUIDX 40102 Alexander wrote... >>>I wonder, was it discussed, or noticed, that there is still a dead basilisk lying in the Chamber of Secrets, with lots of poisonous teeth in his jaws (can be removed quite easily, considering that the teeth in Harry arm had broken). Actually, a whole damn supply of super-weapons for anybody who knows how to get there...<<< I can only assume that you're right about the Basilisk corpse. The Chamber entrance closed right behind Harry, Ron and Lockhart when they were flown back up the pipe by Fawkes, and there's no mention of Harry opening the Chamber again (and it would have to be Harry, since nobody else we know of is a Parseltongue) with Dumbledore and Hagrid in tow to dispose of the beast. But still, it's hardly a supply of super-weapons is it? I'm no expert on snakes, but I think they only have two fangs and no other teeth. So at most there is one complete fang, and one broken one still down there. Also, a Basilisk fang - no matter how lethal its poison is - still wouldn't be a match for a group of Death eaters with wands. Now a Basilisk's eye, that's a weapon worth having! It'd be like the Medusa's head! Snape could have the eye in a bag, wait until he feels the Dark Mark on his arm, apparate to wherever Lord Voldemort is and whip that sucker out! INSTANT VICTORY!!! Mahoney wrote... >>>On the other hand, I've been wondering about that tap in Myrtle's bathroom, wondering how a modern sink tap managed to be the entrance of a Chamber created and sealed and never opened prior to Tom Riddle since Salazar Slytherin's day a thousand years ago (did I get the time frame right? No books at hand). I didn't think they had indoor plumbing back then....<<< Yeah, the time frame is right as far as I remember. I think Hogwarts is said to be 1000 years old, and the Chamber probably would have been there from the start - and certainly before Salazar Slytherin bought the big one. As for the tap, I've seen this discussed on the list before. It's been suggested that Wizards are far in advance of Muggles in many respects, since it's easier to use magic to manipulate things than technology. Transport is just one example of how Wizard World surpasses the Muggle equivalent. Broomsticks and Flying Carpets, Portkeys, Floo Powder, and probably more seem much more efficient than Bicycles, Cars and Aeroplanes. Communication seems to be an area that Muggles get their own back though, what with telephones, television, email and the internet. Much better than sticking your head in a fireplace or tying a piece of parchment to an owl -- but that's an entirely different topic :D Another possibility (and my own personal theory) is that the entrance was charmed to remain disguised as a part of whichever room it finds itself in. If Moaning Myrtle's bathroom was for whatever reason knocked down and turned into another corridor, then the entrance might take on the shape of a portrait or suit of armour instead of a sink. Don't think of it as the tap being the entrance, rather think of the entrance being the tap ;) -LD, who is wondering exactly *how* that ever-so-wise Ravenclaw failed to notice a huge chamber being built underneath her castle? From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jun 20 14:26:48 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:26:48 -0000 Subject: DISHWASHER/SPYGAMES In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40103 Pippin: > Ultimately, SPYGAMES leaves us back where we started, with a battle of good vs. evil. Voldemort plans to allow Harry to escape the graveyard because he, Voldemort, is not willing to face death. Harry is going to win, not because Dumbledore has been more clever than Voldemort, but because unlike Voldemort, Harry and his friends don't consider their personal survival the highest cause.>> To which Grey Wolf enquires as to the origin of the acronym SPYGAMES and how it differs from MAGIC DISHWASHER. How's this? L.E.C.A.R.R.E. S.P.Y.G.A.M.E.S.: Lest Evil Conquer, Arrange Rat Rescue. Eluding Sirius, Pliable Yeoman Got Away; Machinations Ensured Security Pip's theory as presented in her posts does not posit a MAGIC DISHWASHER at all. Dumbledore acts because Voldemort has broken the stalemate by plotting with Malfoy. It is irrelevant whether Voldemort's aim of invulnerable immortality actually can be achieved. Dumbledore probably thinks it can't, IMO. No Dark Wizard has ever achieved it, there being no invulnerable Dark Wizards currently existing. Any formula or potion to produce such an effect must therefore be untried, untested and rife with unintended consequences and side effects. Then there's the unicorns' blood curse--maybe his new body doesn't need it to survive, but how long do you think Voldemort can lay off the sauce? Anyone who would risk killing unicorns under Albus Dumbledore's nose is probably addicted. The MAGIC DISHWASHER does sidesstep the little problem with Dobby, who tells Harry outright that Voldemort in his current form had nothing to do with Malfoy's diary plot. He ought to know, I think. Grey Wolf: >>If you want to take this to the metathinking game of what JKR wants to tell us, do so. It's outside the sphere of influence of MAGIC DISHWASHER, as I've said so many times before. << It's not meta-thinking at all, IMO. Dumbledore takes great pains to make sure that Harry adopts the methods and principles of Gryffindor rather than Slytherin. Indeed some of the list have complained vocally that Dumbledore doesn't miss a chance to make Slytherin look bad. Obviously Dumbledore wants to develop Harry's courage and chivalry, not teach him to scheme. Grey Wolf: >>Harry will win thanks to his intelligence and planning, not due to some wild chance, even if some is involved).<< When have intelligence and planning proved decisive in Harry's battles with the Dark Side? Hermione says it herself: friendship and bravery are more important than books and cleverness. Again, that's not meta thinking. Dumbledore clearly wants the Trio to believe this. That's not to say that Dumbledore doesn't believe in intelligent planning. Yet his action in awarding Neville the ten points that put Gryffindor over the top makes it clear that he values chivalry and bravery more. Dumbledore deliberately arranges to present himself as a role model for Harry. There are plenty of people Dumbledore could have trusted to rescue Harry from the Dursleys and pick up the stone, but he chooses Hagrid, who never misses a chance to tell Harry what a great man Dumbledore is. I don't think Dumbledore would do that if he wasn't trying to live up to the Gryffindor ideal himself. Grey Wolf: >>On a side note completely, I wonder what JKR will think of to stop Voldemort from using his old inmortality spells again on himself? (you know, the ones that made it poossible for him to survive a rebounded AK). << Some of the magical transformations Voldemort went through are irreversible--he comes back as Snakeface, not Tom Riddle. He's not the same being he was when he began so he can't duplicate the initial conditions of his experiments. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jun 20 14:37:46 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:37:46 -0000 Subject: HP and the Superfluous Scene (was TBAY etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40104 Pippin argues that nothing is insignificant: >>"It's not as though there's a video of everything that happens in thePotterverse, and all Rowling does to create her novels is mentallyplay it back and write everything down just as it happened. Even ifthat's an imaginary exercise that Rowling performs as her first step,what ends up on the page is what Rowling means to tell us. Every sentence serves a purpose,whether it's to entertain, inform, persuade or confuse." (39968)<< Dicentra: >>[I] came across a scene that struck [me] as useless. It doesn't appear tocontribute anything to the rest of the story, either as aclue-pointer-outer, a character definer, a mood-setter, or even a red herring. The scene is in the middle of "Grim Defeat," right after Snape substitutes for Lupin and right before the Hufflepuff/Gryffindor Quidditch match where Harry sees the Grim and the Dementors knock himoff his broom (page 173, Scholastic edition). Harry wakes up before dawn, thinking that the howling wind of thestorm awoke him. But no, Peeves was floating above him, "blowing hardin his ear." He asks Peeves what the sam hill he was doing that for, but Peeves just cackles and blows himself out of the room. << This is Crookshanks' first Sirius-directed effort to nab Pettigrew. We don't know that on first reading, though Rowling helpfully offers us a hint: "mangy cur!" It also establishes that Peeves has access to password-protected Gryffindor tower. The ghosts and such don't usually invade the students' bedrooms. We get the impression from Myrtle that they're not really supposed to. Did Peeves break the rules at Crookshanks' instigation to distract Harry and get him to open the door ? We know he was willing to break a cabinet for NHN. It could be significant some time in the future that Poltergeists can get into otherwise inacessible places. The rest of the section is indeed a mood setter. If you look at what comes before, it's the tense and conflict-ridden Snape substitute scene. At the end of it Harry is wondering why Snape is so hostile to Lupin. We are wondering if Lupin has been poisoned, per Harry's suspicions about the potion taking scene earlier. If Rowling goes straight to the Quidditch match, we'll still be focusing on Snape and the missing Lupin. The start of the game would be anti-climactic. Instead, Rowling sends in Peeves for comic relief, then gives us a long morning in which Harry's apprehension over the coming match can slowly build. Pippin too lazy to get the croquet set out this morning but who thinks Dicentra plays a good game From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 20 15:11:30 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 15:11:30 -0000 Subject: FILK: You-Know-Who Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40105 You-Know-Who To the tune of "Voulez-vous" by ABBA. VOLDEMORT: Wizards everywhere Refuse to say my name, I've got 'em running scared. When I raise my Mark, They'll all be cowering before a Lord who's Dark. I deal out death and pain to those who dare oppose my reign. Don't get in my way! I've got them terrified, a fact in which I take much pride. I love to hear them say: You-Know-Who! (Uh-huh) That is what they call me (Uh-huh), Once they know they score (Uh-huh), They will not say Voldemort! You-Know-Who! (Uh-huh) My name makes them lose it! (Uh-huh) They're a feeble crew! (Uh-huh) Watch them whisper "You-Know-Who." DUMBLEDORE: It's a sorry state When wizards are afraid to name the one they hate. Giving in to fear Won't make the object of your terror disappear. It's really weak and lame, refusing to pronounce his name. Say it good and loud! Relentlessly I seek to end this euphemistic streak, It can't be allowed! You-Know-Who! (Uh-huh) It's a silly habit (Uh-huh), Which I do deplore. (Uh-huh) Learn to call him Voldemort! You-Know-Who! (Uh-huh!) That's no way to name him! (Uh-huh) I encourage you (Uh-huh) To stop saying "You-Know-Who." VOLDEMORT/DUMBLEDORE You-Know-Who!/It won't do! Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From suzchiles at pobox.com Thu Jun 20 15:29:58 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 08:29:58 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dead Basilisk In-Reply-To: <5125574521.20020620123738@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40106 Alexander said: > I wonder, was it discussed, or noticed, that there is > still a dead basilisk lying in the Chamber of Secrets, with > lots of poisonous teeth in his jaws (can be removed quite > easily, considering that the teeth in Harry arm had broken). I think it's pretty much a sure thing that the Hogwarts staff took care of that over the summer break. Zo From Edblanning at aol.com Thu Jun 20 16:38:23 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:38:23 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Severus Snape and The Incident Message-ID: <125.12628ae2.2a435eff@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40107 Darrin: > The whole bit about being readmitted under an alias has a big factor > in favor and a big factor against. > > Against: Unless he drastically changed his appearance, the other > students would likely know who he was. There you are. Some of us always knew there was more to Snape than that greasy-haired, hook-nosed, oily-skinned, yellow-toothed, mean, ugly err.... what's the current phrase? Oh, I can't remember.....one of those Americanisms beginning sch... Obviously, he's really an Adonis with manners to match and his current demeanor and temperament are just an elaborate ruse so that no-one knows who he really is. And that's how he got involved in all those complicated love triangles and fell out with James over Lily (because Lily knew his identity and knew what he was *really* like) and he's really hacked off that having been the most popular boy in the school, now everybody loves to hate him. So when he says of Hermione's teeth, 'I see no difference', it's another cri de coeur. He knows that beauty is only skin deep. Eloise Who should probably go and eat something, as she seems to be beginning to hallucinate. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lmccabe at sonic.net Thu Jun 20 16:53:57 2002 From: lmccabe at sonic.net (Linda C. McCabe) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 09:53:57 -0700 Subject: QTTA Possible FLINT Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40108 Hello All, I recently purchased Quidditch Through The Ages having seen many people referring to it on this list. In trying to discern clues that might be hidden in it about characters, etc. I saw what may be a FLINT. The inside front cover has the list of students who checked out the book and the due dates for return to the library. Given the fact that the school starts on September 1st and they have a two month summer holiday, I've gathered that the Hogwarts Express leaves on June 30th. This is the part that gets squirrelly - there are four entries during the summer recess. C. Diggory 3 July A. Johnson 19 July E. Macmillan 12 August T. Boot 21 August I can see that Cedric's due date might be the type of bureaucratic thing that my university library does and simply keeps the two week checkout period (or whatever the time frame is) the same even when there's school holidays. So, it wouldn't automatically be truncated to June 30th. But how to explain the other three entries and their dates. Does Madam Irma Pince keep the library open during the Summer months as a reference for the wizarding community at large? Or just students? Or what's going on? I mean JKR could have used the same names on this list and simply started the dates with September going to June, but instead she started in April and went through the summer and ended with Harry Potter's checking the book out and being due on March 11th. Hmmm. Very Curious. I also noticed a few names I hadn't seen before in any of the books. (Although maybe they are there in the famous toss off a name and make it seem meaningless passages.) Does anyone recognize these names: B. Dunstan K. Bundy J. Domy S. Capper Oh and I did notice T. Nott. The only mention that I can recall in the four books is that Nott was sorted along with Moon and Sally-Anne Perks during Harry's sorting scene but no house affiliations were mentioned. Then during the graveyard scene Nott was identified as a Death Eater. So, that lead me to assume that Nott the younger is probably a Slytherin, but we don't know for sure nor do we know if T. Nott is male or female. Of course if it is Tabitha Nott, she could be part of Pansy Parkinson's gang of Slytherin girls. Having only Pansy and Millicent Bulstrode as the only identified female Slytherins of Harry's year makes "gang" seem a bit rich. I've never heard of a gang of two. Just some food for thought on a Thursday morning. Athena From ftah3 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 20 16:59:30 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:59:30 -0000 Subject: Dead Basilisk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40109 > Alexander said: > > I wonder, was it discussed, or noticed, that there is > > still a dead basilisk lying in the Chamber of Secrets, with > > lots of poisonous teeth in his jaws (can be removed quite > > easily, considering that the teeth in Harry arm had broken). Zo? replied: > I think it's pretty much a sure thing that the Hogwarts staff took care of > that over the summer break. Oh, I don't know that it's a *sure* thing - any number of things could have happened. Maybe dead basilisks decompose into harmless skeletons, so there would be little reason to go down and do anything with the corpse; or similarly, maybe the production of its poison cease shortly after death, and the remaining poison quickly loses potency. Or maybe the Chamber, once relieved of its dangerous resident, magically fades, or the entrance (going back to speculation that the castle itself might be magical and transforms due to the needs/changes of content/construction) vanishes, or the entrance in Myrtle's bathroom becomes irrevocably sealed now that there is nothing in the Chamber of Secrets to release. Hmm. Mahoney From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Thu Jun 20 17:17:34 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 18:17:34 +0100 Subject: Harry's blood/Lily Potter References: <014601c21807$d6b63be0$8fa2cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: <002801c2187e$5e219400$429f5651@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 40110 And most of all, why did Voldemort hesitate to kill Lily Potter? Can't quite fathom that he has a soft spot for women. There's a missing link here somewhere. > > Richelle > Somebody please point out the hesitation bit to me. I thought he just killed her then tried to kill Harry. Unforvibably short post but maybe I have read the book wrong ( or the wrong edition) Felicia From suzchiles at pobox.com Thu Jun 20 17:22:50 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 10:22:50 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's blood/Lily Potter In-Reply-To: <002801c2187e$5e219400$429f5651@tinyjyuaxzlq> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40111 Richelle said: > And most of all, why did Voldemort hesitate to kill Lily Potter? Can't > quite fathom that he has a soft spot for women. There's a > missing link here > somewhere. and then Felicia said: > Somebody please point out the hesitation bit to me. I thought he just > killed her then tried to kill Harry. I believe that much of this will be cleared up in the Order of the Phoenix. JKR has said that we'll be learning much more about James and Lily in Book 5. Apparently, the green eyes that Lily and Harry share are said to be of some importance. Suzanne From petra.delisser at saunalahti.fi Thu Jun 20 18:07:59 2002 From: petra.delisser at saunalahti.fi (brinforest) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 18:07:59 -0000 Subject: Nitwit etc - maybe even AD's siblings? In-Reply-To: <00cf01c2183a$217b6560$43b068d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40112 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rosie" wrote: > Brin: > "Hey all. I actually managed to think of something that nobody's > posted before as far as I know: it just occurred to me that Nitwit, > Blubber, Oddment and Tweak are either secret nicknames of the > founders, or - get this - the Marauders of Dumbledore's youth, him > being one! Would anyone like to comment on that?" > > I just thought they were random words that sounded interesting... I suppose your theory is possible.. although I am not sure why Dumbledore would say them? Do you have any ideas on that? > Yes, I just forgot to say it before. I think that's his way of honouring whoever the words mean, in a very cool and AD-like way. He is keeping someone's memory alive - even if nobody else knows he is. And this is something only he is old enough to know about. Even the way his speech is presented is an ambiguous clue to this: every word is pronounced separately with an exclamation mark at the end. If he had said "Nitwit, Blubber, Oddment and Tweak!" his secret would have been out after PoA. Would I be taking things a tad too far if I said I expect to hear Dumbledore utter those words again - in fact, bellow them in a thunderous voice in a climactic battle scene. For spiritual support! And one more possibility: the words mean Albus along with his brothers Aberforth and Algie and sister Arabella *waves at Charis Julia*! Brin From rvotaw at i-55.com Thu Jun 20 17:25:40 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:25:40 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's blood/Lily Potter Message-ID: <6917205.1024593940328.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40113 Felicia writes: > Somebody please point out the hesitation bit to me. I thought he just > killed her then tried to kill Harry. > Unforvibably short post but maybe I have read the book wrong ( or the wrong > edition) I only have book one with me right now (Scholastic paperback edition) and at the end when Voldemort is trying to get Harry to give him the stone he says "I killed your father first, he put up a courageous fight . . . but your mother needn't have died. . . she was trying to protect you." I believe there's something more in Book 3, but I don't have it with me right now. I'll check on it tomorrow. Richelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From crana at ntlworld.com Thu Jun 20 17:25:44 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 18:25:44 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's blood/Lily Potter References: <014601c21807$d6b63be0$8fa2cdd1@istu757> <002801c2187e$5e219400$429f5651@tinyjyuaxzlq> Message-ID: <001801c2187f$93c3ef80$21b168d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40114 Richelle wrote: "And most of all, why did Voldemort hesitate to kill Lily Potter? Can't quite fathom that he has a soft spot for women. There's a missing link here somewhere." And Felicia wrote: "Somebody please point out the hesitation bit to me. I thought he just killed her then tried to kill Harry." I think the hesitation Richelle describes is implied rather than actually stated. In a flashback, I think Harry hears his mum saying something like "Not Harry, not Harry, kill me instead" and Voldemort saying "Move aside, you silly girl" (although that last bit might just be in the film, I can't remember). Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From editor at texas.net Thu Jun 20 19:16:58 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:16:58 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dead Basilisk References: Message-ID: <006501c2188f$0de69380$4d7663d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40115 First Alexander said: > > > I wonder, was it discussed, or noticed, that there is > > still a dead basilisk lying in the Chamber of Secrets, with > > lots of poisonous teeth in his jaws (can be removed quite > > easily, considering that the teeth in Harry arm had broken). Zoe-with-the-e-dots-I-can't-do responded: > > I think it's pretty much a sure thing that the Hogwarts staff took care of > that over the summer break. Now me: I think it's a sure thing that the basilisk will lie there undisturbed my man or elves until doomsday comes, unless Harry takes it into his mind to traipse down there again, or Voldemort wins and wants to go reminiscing. Regardless of the basilisk's post-biological status (nods to Joywitch, wasn't it? old joke), the fact of the matter is that the entrance can only be opened by one speaking Parseltongue. And as far as we know (stresses this point, because other Parselmouths may pop out of the woodwork), only Riddle/Voldemort and Harry speak it ("It's not a very common gift"). The Hogwarts staff was unable to get down there before, when there was pressing need (say, to rescue Ginny, or simply collar the monster, or even further back the first time Riddle opened it). Why should they be able to get down there to clean up? Unless the rockfall caused some structural problems with the school far above, necessitating getting down there for repairs, or unless they asked Harry to open it for them, I'm betting the basilisk lies there still, where it fell, presumably in some state of decay. Maybe not--didn't Harry hear rats down there? --Amandageist From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Jun 20 19:34:09 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 19:34:09 -0000 Subject: Why Suspect Lupin? Again. In-Reply-To: <3d.1f92f25b.2a39711a@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40116 Sarah wrote: > One reason I would suspect Lupin as being somewhat-evil... During > the Conversation in the shrieking shack, between Lupin and Sirius, > Lupin, says that he was not told about the switch to Peter as the > secret keeper, because Sirius suspected Lupin as being in alliance > with Voldemort. > That doesn't really make sense. Why would Sirius and James suspect > Lupin over Peter? Well, primarily, I think that they suspected him because he is a werewolf. No. It's not very nice, is it? But even the most tolerant of individuals can possess internalized bigotry, and Sirius does tell us that those were very paranoid times. Werewolves are classified as "dark creatures." Voldemort was a Dark Wizard. Sirius and James would not have been human if they hadn't had moments of doubt. Even if one refuses to entertain the notion that James and Sirius were prejudiced against werewolves per se, though, the fact still remains that Lupin's condition would have rendered him unusually vulnerable to both pressure and temptation from the enemy. He is both unemployable and impoverished, which renders him vulnerable to bribery or offers of a stable income. He is a member of a hated yet invisible minority, which renders him vulnerable to blackmail. He is a member of a marginalized social group, which renders him vulnerable to social resentment and to misguided idealism. Voldemort's people could well have made promises that once the current status quo had been overthrown, werewolves would finally be granted the acceptance that they had failed to receive from those currently in power. Indeed, it is strongly implied that they made just such promises to the giants. He is effectively chronically ill, which leaves him vulnerable to false hope. Dark magic has tremendous power, doesn't it? Its practitioners can do unexpectedly potent things. Can they cure lycanthropy? Alleviate its symptoms? Might they claim that they could? Honestly, if Sirius and James *didn't* find themselves worrying about Remus' vulnerability to all of those things from time to time, then I'd say that they must have been disgustingly insensitive. I also think that Sirius' behavior in the Shrieking Shack strongly suggests that Sirius, at any rate, most certainly *did* suspect Lupin at least in part because he was a werewolf. Just look at what happens. Sirius is not really playing with a full deck at all in the Shrieking Shack. He's vengeance-driven. He's half-mad. His emotional responses to things aren't entirely normal, and neither is his affect. He is grinning madly, he delivers lines like "There'll only be one murder here tonight" while leering maniacally at a bunch of schoolkids whom he knows perfectly well believe him to be a crazed killer after Harry's blood, even when overpowered he keeps on agreeing to the accusation that he murdered the Potters (although he does at least try to explain the rest of the story, it's still not exactly sane behavior)...I mean, the guy can't seem to muster up a single normal human emotional reaction to anything going on around him. So what changes? What finally gets to him? When does he actually start to *weep?* Lupin. Lupin comes in and extends his trust. Instantly. Unquestioningly. Later on, he will have some questions about Sirius' admittedly rather improbable story, but he doesn't raise any of them at first. Instead, he offers his hand. He offers his embrace. He offers his immediate and unhesitating trust. And then Hermione outs him as a werewolf, and the kids all start screaming accusations at him. Ron delivers his "Get away from me, Werewolf!" line. Hermione declares that she should have exposed him from the start. Harry, told that Dumbledore worked to convince the rest of the staff to accept Lupin as *trustworthy* (Yes, "trustworthy" is precisely the word used) screams out, in JKR's adorable capital letters: "AND HE WAS WRONG! YOU'VE BEEN HELPING HIM ALL THE TIME!" And *that* is when we are told that Sirius has crawled over to the bed, that he is shaking, and that he has covered his face with his hand. Indeed, he would seem to have been reduced to tears. I'd say that Sirius suspected Lupin all those many years ago because he was a werewolf. Wouldn't you? Poor guilt-ridden Sirius. If you're looking for suspicious things about Lupin other than his lycanthropy, though, then I think that there are still plenty of those. Back in February, Mahoney (who I am pleased to see back with us!) asked a very similar question. She asked: > On another subject, has anyone speculated that as for Black having > suspected Lupin as being the spy, there might have been some reason > related to, I dunno, Lupin's personality that suggested it? I.e., > something other than, say, general distrust of werewolves? I do think that there are plenty of reasons other than his lycanthropy that Sirius and James might have suspected Lupin. My full defense of this claim is message number #35040, but here in summary: He chose to specialize in the Dark Arts. He has a black sense of humor. He responds to emotional distress by retreating into a very cool and seemingly heartless manner. He speaks of dark or upsetting matters in a breezy and flippant tone of voice. His demeanor when practicing magic is unsettling (the specific words that JKR uses to describe his wandwork are the words that she ordinarily reserves to describe the demeanor of her sadistic villains). He is unnervingly sensitive to others' thoughts and needs. He has a pronounced jugular instinct. He has the capacity for cruelty. He is more than clever enough and emotionally controlled enough to have made an effective spy, and he had *experience* with it. As a member of a hated yet invisible minority population, a certain type of deceit and self-misrepresentation was already a fundamental part of Lupin's identity. All werewolves are spies. His friends would likely have understood this. It might well have given them pause. By the time of canon, Lupin would also seem to have developed a more than a few self-destructive or self-sabotaging tendencies. These may be symptomatic of emotional damage from the Potters' deaths. Then again, he may always have had those leanings, and if so, then that would make him pretty suspect too, wouldn't it? After all, you just don't *get* much more self-sabotaging than selling yourself to the Dark side. Forgetting to take your Wolfsbane Potion pales in comparison. Sarah again: > Lupin must have done something to make them suspicious. . . .If you > ask me, he must have done something odd which tipped James and > Sirius off.... Lupin was suspect to begin with, by simple virtue of being who he is. They were suspicious and paranoid times. In such times, any action might be viewed as an "oddity," an incongruity, a tip-off. In such times, just about anything can set the snowball of paranoia rolling right down the hillside. (For an illustration by example, check out any of Theory Bay's "Order of the Flying Hedgehog" threads. A keyword search for the words "Ever," "So," and "Evil" should do the trick. ;->) But on the subject of Hedgehoggian speculations, Pip wrote: > I think it is very likely that JKR is going to introduce a theme > of 'prejudice causes some of its victims to turn to evil'. She's > already hinted at that with Dumbledore's suggestion in GoF that the > Giants have turned to Voldemort because he has promised them rights > and freedom. > Evil!Lupin would fit in very nicely with that theme. Indeed, this is the only Evil!Lupin scenario that I really find at all canonically plausible. In spite of all of Pippin's heroic efforts, I don't really think that he's already turned. But I remain open to the suggestion that JKR might decide to do such a thing with him in future volumes. As Marina wrote: > If a potentially good and noble man is going to be pushed toward > evil by bigotry and hate, I wanna see it happen *now*, not hear a > speech about how it happened fifteen years ago. "Show, don't tell" > is the motto. > I think the situation is ripe right now for a "temptation of Remus > Lupin" storyline. I think so as well. I think it would be a great subplot. I don't know if I believe that JKR's planning on it, but I'd certainly enjoy it. And I do tend to agree with Pip that we're more than likely to see *someone* get corrupted at some point in the story. I still hold out hopes, though, that JKR plans to tie "Elephant In the Drawing Room" House Slytherin into that particular thematic function somehow. Sarah again: > Everyone always said how weak Peter was, and how he hung around his > powerful, protector like friends. So then why would they suspect > Lupin and not Peter... They only speak about Peter in precisely that way after they already know that he's turned. McGonagall, believing him to be a martyr, does call him both a weakling and a tagalong, but she doesn't slant this observation at all in the direction of Peter being attracted to power, or seeking protectors. Only Sirius does, and he's speaking from hindsight. As for why they wouldn't have suspected Peter...well, if he was anything back then like he is these days, then why on earth would *anyone* have suspected him? He really doesn't come across as someone who would make all that competent a spy, does he? He gives the impression of having no emotional control whatsoever. And he can't tell a decent lie to...well, to save his life. He does seem to have an unusual facility for leading others to underestimate him. That, however, is a talent which by its very nature almost always goes completely overlooked. ;-) -- Elkins (now off to the homoeroticism thread, to tackle a much bigger Elephant in an altogether darker Drawing Room). From eclipse02134 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 20 19:43:59 2002 From: eclipse02134 at yahoo.com (Eclipse) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:43:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Albania In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020620194359.11680.qmail@web20801.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40117 The talk about Albania made me think. If I remember correctly its where Voldemort spends the first two books (I don't have my books). There no mention where he is in book three. However isn't also where Peter runs into the witch from the MOM? Maybe there is something there that stregthens magic, but only avaiable to people who use dark magic? Another possiblity is that something there makes people immpossible to track, making it a great hiding place? Dumbledore says he knows Voldemort is there through his spies. Not because he's been able to track him there. However could be its just a place that is far enough away that Dumbledore can't effect people there (No contacts in Albania, maybe), but close enough to get back to England quickly if needed. Eclipse __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Jun 20 19:48:06 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 19:48:06 -0000 Subject: Sexuality in HP (WAS So, why did Snape turn on Voldermort?) In-Reply-To: <3D10EA96.304ED869@yaoigoddess.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40118 I've deprefixed this thread, since it's really more about sexuality and homoerotic overtones in the HP books in general than it is about any particular relationship or romantic speculation. *However.* This post does contain discussion of both homoeroticism and sexual sadism. We don't have a prefix for that. So consider this a warning: if that sort of thing bothers you, then you'd be well advised to skip now. No. Really. I mean it. ----- Rochelle wrote: > But when you examine them closely, are the HP books REALLY that > innocent? Er, no. They're not, very. Their less innocent aspects are, however, often very cleverly glossed. Take the harrassment of Mrs. Roberts at the QWC World Cup, for example. To adult readers, the scene cannot help but suggest that Muggle rape was a regular part of the modus operandi of the Death Eaters. To a child, however, it is far more likely to be associated with the common playground game of trying to see other people's underwear. Of course, the reason that allowing others to catch a glimpse of ones underwear on the playground is so humiliating in the first place is due to precisely the same cultural dynamic that makes rape such a devestatingly effective terror technique. This scene therefore serves both to suggest some very adult nastiness to the series' more mature readers and to inspire precisely the right *flavor* of discomfort in its younger readers -- all while remaining perfectly suitable for children. > Here are a few things to think about, mostly subject to > interpretation, and some harder to ignore than others. > 1)From the "easily ignored" category, we have the thing that Harry > would "sorely miss" [p.463] which, of course, turned out to be Ron > [p.498] Granted, this is innocent enough; Harry IS ron's closest > friend. But especially when given the fact that two of the other > three competitors had to rescue their girlfriends/dance dates (Krum > had to save Hermione; Cedric had to save Cho), the homoerotic > subtext here isn't that hard to find. Hmmm. Well, Harry's still practically pre-pubescent in his thinking in GoF, isn't he? I don't know if I find Ron's role as the thing he would "sorely miss" quite so much homoerotic as I do simply homosocial. Where I see a lot more homoerotic subtext, actually, is in the particular tenor of Harry's envy of "pretty boy" Cedric Diggory. (I also seem to remember that the last person who brought up this aspect of the Harry-Cedric dynamic got flamed. Before my time, that was, or I would have felt compelled to defend her. I see it there too.) But as you say, this sort of thing is always highly open to interpretation. Far less so, I think, is the unrelenting homoerotic insinuation to which Percy is subjected by both Ron and the Twins throughout _GoF._ JKR can't come right out and let Percy's brothers call him a...um, a derogatory term for a gay male, of course, but the precise tenor of their needling about the depths of his attachment to his employer -- he *loves* Crouch, he wants to *marry him,* and so forth -- makes it pretty clear that this is exactly the nature of their teasing. > Humorous, yes, but a little perverted no matter HOW you interpret > it. Heh. Yeah. But again, voyeurism is really very popular among children, isn't it? We're back to "I see London, I see France" here. Or "playing doctor," for that matter. It may be a little bit perverted, but it's perverted in a specific way that, for whatever reason, our culture has declared to be particularly suitable and appropriate for children. > Tom Riddle's "hungry eyes" in CoS [p.309, 311]. Okay, so maybe > looking at someone "hungrily" means something completely different > in England than it usually does in the States (though I doubt it). > And yes, if you try, you can just brush it off. But nonetheless, > we've got some pretty blatant homoerotic subtext going on. Mmmmm. Yes. Well. We get back to dear Riddle and his little...uh, quirks in that graveyard sequence, don't we? But JKR's depiction of Riddle in CoS really is pretty interesting. The language that she uses to describe him is both sexualized and somewhat feminizing. He does indeed have that "hungry" gaze, as you mentioned. He speaks "quietly," "softly." In the Chamber sequence, JKR pays particularly close attention to his hands, to his "long fingers" (a trait upon which she will positively *obsess* by the time we get to his reappearance as the reincorporated Voldemort at the end of Gof). When Harry first notices Riddle in the Chamber, he is leaning languidly against a pillar. He twirls Harry's wand "idly" while speaking to him. This is sensual language, and the behavior that it depicts is flirtatious. If Riddle were a woman, you might be tempted to call his demeanor "vampish." It is both a sexualized and a highly seductive depiction of character. Riddle sure doesn't show very much interest in Ginny at all, though, does he? Both as Riddle and as Voldemort, he is consistently depicted as both distinterested in and highly dismissive of women as a general class. > 4)CoS, pages 285-286 where Percy goes to great lengths to keep Ginny > from telling anyone what she caught him doing. All right, so it > turns out that he was kissing his new girlfriend [p.341]. But up > until that gets revealed, you know very well what you THOUGHT he > was doing! ;) Hmmm? You've lost me here, Rochelle. Weren't we supposed to be thinking that Percy was messing about with Salazar's basilisk? I never went chasing after that red herring myself, but I'm pretty sure that our suspicions were supposed to lie in that direction. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, though. Do you figure that JKR wanted to lead her older readers to think that Percy might have been kissing a boy? Or just that he was up to something rather more sexually advanced than snogging? > 5)And finally, we have the elephant that's sitting in the living > room: that entire... thing... that happened near the end of GoF > [p.636-658]. Oh, thank heavens! And here all this time, I've been thinking that I was surely the only person Bent enough to have found myself staring with slack-jawed incredulity at that whomping big elephant. I can *feel* it! I can *feel* it! It's a ROPE! A rope just long enough to use to *hang* myself! Heh. Yes. Well. Yeah, the entire graveyard sequence is really pretty, er, astonishing, isn't it? It certainly did make me blink the first time I read it. I kept thinking, "Oh, lord, is she really getting *away* with this?" > We have Harry bound and helpless as his blood is "forcibly taken" > [p.642] -- a violation of his body. To me, this looks like a fairly > obvious metaphor for rape; to make it even clearer, the knife (a > common phallic symbol) "penetrates" [p.642 again] Harry's flesh. That it does. It penetrates the virginal young Harry and strips him of those protections with which his sainted mother had imbued him. Yup. JKR even goes for the straight-out word choice there. "Penetrates." Not leaving anything to chance, is she? But then, the entire graveyard sequence is really just one great massive sado-masochistic orgyfest, don't you think? I mean, the sexualization of the language throughout those chapters really is unrelenting. The newly rebirthed Voldemort doesn't just check himself over. He actually *caresses* himself (yes, with those "long fingers"). "His expression rapt and exultant." Then, as if one "caress" in this context weren't disturbing enough, in the very same paragraph he caresses his *wand.* "Gently caresses" it, mind. Gently. His Death Eaters, crawling forward to pay their homage, "murmer" their obeisance. It's a peculiar word choice, that. "Murmered" has somewhat sexualized connotations. Later on in this scene, the DEs will appear simply terrified but here, in their first appearance, they come across as more...well, transported, really. Transported by a kind of submissive ecstacy. And then there's Voldemort's *thing* with Harry. That single- fingered stroke on the cheek. That comment about Harry's father facing him "straight-backed and proud." (Gee. He hardly paid that much attention to how Harry's *mother* died, did he? Far less her *posture* at the time.) And what I think must be one of the most disturbing lines in the entire series: "'A little break,' said Voldemort, the slit-like nostrils dilating with excitement, "a little pause...'" Nostrils dilating with *excitment?* Um. Yeah. Look. I've just written and then erased three separate attempts at this paragraph, trying desperately to avoid getting too vulgar here, and I'm just not having very much luck with it. So, uh, can we just leave the question of *who* precisely might really be the one in need of a "little break" at this point in the duel as read, then, and move on? It's some seriously disturbing language, this. Genre villains are nearly always sadistic, that's de trope, but it's really quite rare to find their sadism marked so very blatantly as sexual. To come across it in a series marketed for children borders on the downright shocking. > This list is not complete. I could add quite a bit more if I > wanted, but I think that's enough for now. Ah, yes. Restraint. That's a virtue, I'm told. Sadly, it's not one that I've ever quite mastered, myself. > Personally, I think J.K.R. is a closet slasher. ;) But that's just > my opinion. Do you think so? I'm actually made uneasy by the conflation of homoeroticism, effeminacy and sadism in these depictions. Yeah, yeah. I know, I know. It's just standard genre convention. It's hardly restricted to the HP books. It's everywhere. It's just plain inescapable. But it's not a genre convention that I've ever much cared for, myself. It often strikes me as uncomfortably homophobic. -- Elkins From meboriqua at aol.com Thu Jun 20 19:49:37 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 19:49:37 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Sexuality in HP (WAS So, why did Snape turn on Voldermort?) In-Reply-To: <3D10EA96.304ED869@yaoigoddess.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40119 I thought about this post all day today and decided I had to respond to it. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Rochelle wrote: > 1)From the "easily ignored" category, we have the thing that Harry would "sorely miss" [p.463] which, of course, turned out to be Ron [p.498] Granted, this is innocent enough; Harry IS ron's closest friend. But especially when given the fact that two of the other three competitors had to rescue their girlfriends/dance dates (Krum had to save Hermione; Cedric had to save Cho), the homoerotic subtext here isn't that hard to find. and: > 3)Tom Riddle's "hungry eyes" in CoS [p.309, 311]. Okay, so maybe looking at someone "hungrily" means something completely different i England than it usually does in the States (though I doubt it). An yes, if you try, you can just brush it off. But nonetheless, we've got some pretty blatant homoerotic subtext going on. > Personally, I think J.K.R. is a closet slasher. ;) But that's just my opinion.> As interesting an interpretation of the text as this is, I disagree. Why can't Harry and Ron's friendship be just that? When I found sexual content in HP, homoerotic didn't really make the list (although plenty of others find it throughout the series). I wasn't too crazy about the way Rowling put together the second task because it was a little too convenient that Ron, Hermione *and* Cho were all down in the lake, but still. Harry and Ron hadn't long before made up from a fairly ugly bout of not talking, so it is understandable that he would miss the friendship of Ron. Considering Harry's hefty crush on Cho, I can't say that his friendship with Ron is anything more than that: a friendship. As for Tom's "hungry" eyes, it never once occurred to me to see that description in a sexual way. People can be hungry for many reasons: physically, emotionally, intellectually... There's the expression "money hungry" which also has nothing to do with sexuality. Sexuality is definitely there in HP (Moaning Myrtle spying on the prefects is an excellent example). In PoA the security trolls "comparing the size of their clubs" is about as blatant as JKR gets and I get the feeling that Dumbledore's joke that was interrupted by McGonagall in GoF was probably going to be a good and dirty one. Mostly, though, I see sexuality as developing along with the characters. Even Hagrid, who is more of a child than the children in the series themselves, develops a rather obvious attraction to Madame Maxime and the tension between Ron and Hermione is something that *I* can personally feel just by reading (Penny vehemently disagrees with me on that one, though). Perhaps we would *like* JKR to take a risk and write a gay character. It would be exciting, daring and controversial. However, I can't imagine that happening, so for now, I'll have to say that any homoerotic subtext is in the imagination. Then again, I'd say H/H is too, but once again, that's just me. --jenny from ravenclaw ***** From meboriqua at aol.com Thu Jun 20 20:17:34 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 20:17:34 -0000 Subject: Hagrid the Betrayer/ Hagrid, the one who can't handle his job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40120 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "aldrea279" wrote: > Jenny: > >A number of members here have mentioned that one of Hagrid's problems is that, even though he is an adult, he is not quite as developed as one. I agree and see that as a serious flaw in Hagrid's character.> > > There's a number of adult characters that are also not quite developed- Snape, Sirius, Lupin, and some have even said Dumbledore himself.> Oops! My bad. I can see I didn't explain myself clearly here. What I meant was that Hagrid's character is written as someone who more like a child than an adult. His character is quite well developed, but his maturity within his characterization is not. If Hagrid was a real person, I would see him as a man who is acts like a boy. > Hagrid doesn't really see the Trio as being students outside of the > classroom, he sees them as good friends. He had some hardships, and > he got some advice from some friends. It's not as if Hagrid was > blubbering away while talking about flobberworms- he was doing so in > the confines of his own household and with good friends.> Isn't there a scene when he runs off crying in front of the class? I believe it is in PoA when Hermione ends up slapping Draco. > ~Aldrea, whose mom doesn't even read HP so has no idea how she feels about Hagrid. But also, who is not in any way trying to get Jenny to like Hagrid(that is so obviously an up-Mount-Everest battle), but feels that if you're not going to like him you should have more basis than Draco being a brat or something Hagrid didn't even do(like giving Rita dirt on Harry or blaming Hagrid for making his teaching dangerous).> Why not? I don't like Hagrid. I find him annoying. I think his obsession with "interestin' creatures" is stupid and irritating. I hate him for not having a backbone when it came to Draco; he backed down way too fast, something I, as a teacher, would never have done in that situation. I also think he gave Rita Skeeter plenty of dirt, on himself as well as on Harry. Why Hagrid ever thought it would be okay to be interviewed by her is beyond me. It was stupid and self-centered. Hagrid's strongest moments IMO are the ones when he defends the people he cares about. The scene in SS with the Dursleys is wonderful and the way he slammed Karkaroff against the tree in GoF is maybe how he should have allowed himself to react to Draco in PoA for being such a poor student. Unfortunately, I don't think Hagrid is intelligent or confident enough to do that. He could have so easily turned the tables on Draco, claiming that Draco put the entire class at risk when he didn't listen to directions and provoked a hippogriff. Or why did it take Professor Grubbly-Plank (did I remember her name right) to make Hagrid prove to his class that he *did* know his stuff when it came to magical creatures? These are the things that make me uncomfortable with Hagrid. He's a weak link. --jenny from ravenclaw, wondering where her fellow Hagird-basher, Cindy is right now - grrrr ************* From dicentra at xmission.com Thu Jun 20 21:11:37 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 21:11:37 -0000 Subject: Pa' los que entiendan Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40121 If you don't read Spanish, don't worry about the following. I'm making a correction to an obscure reference that only a Spanish-speaker would get. En el mensaje 40082, yo me equivoque en la traduccion de algo. Dije 'lobo pardo' cuando debia decir 'lobo gris'. Resulta que 'pardo' es un termino ofensivo; por tanto, parece que estoy insultando al referente. La verdad es que ignoraba el sentido feo de la palabra. Le pido perdon al ofendido y publicamente quiero confesar y corregir el error. --Dicentra, la arrepentida From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Jun 20 21:20:43 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 21:20:43 -0000 Subject: The Sorting of Neville Longbottom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40122 Hana wrote: > I agree with the fact that Neville doesn't really fit in > Hufflepuff, that he doesn't, in fact, seem to fit into ~any~ of the > houses. Yes. As I've argued before (Message #38398) I read the Hat's very long hesitation with Neville as representing a dilemma of "None of the Above." Gryffindor was a best-fit. That doesn't mean that it was necessarily a *good* fit. Hana also most kindly provided us with the Gryffindor traits: > The Gryffindor traits from PS/SS and GOF: > brave at heart > daring > nerve > chivalry > bold > (and intelligent since Godric made the Sorting Hat) > He ~has~ shown courage in helping to fight Malfoy, Crabbe, and > Goyle in PS/SS, as well as when he stands up to the Trio so bravery > is there, deciding to fight might be considered daring (for him) > and show some nerve since he's not really the picture of fighting > strength. I would say that his actions in both of those cases definitely show daring. They certainly show nerve. They also reveal a great deal of cowardice -- or at the very least, a profound weakness of will. Really, he's just doing what everybody else keeps telling him to do there, isn't he? The rest of the Gryffindor boys nag and harrass him about how he should "stick up for himself," and Harry tells him that he's worth twelve of Malfoy. So what does he do the *very next time* a situation like this comes up? Why, he parrots Harry's words right back to Malfoy, of course. And then he gets into an utterly uncharacteristic fist fight for no good reason at all, other than his desire to satisfy the expectations of his peers. That's not courage. That's caving to pressure. It's nothing but the social equivalent of succumbing to the Imperius Curse. Darrin wrote: > The boy took on two boys twice his size. Yes. It's interesting that, isn't it? Why did he go for Crabbe and Goyle? Why not weedy little Draco Malfoy, against whom he might at least have stood a fighting chance? Why the kids that he *knew* could land him straight in the hospital -- and not just one of them, but both of them at once? Could it be that he was trying to make a *point?* Darrin also wrote: > The boy risked his friendship with Hermione, Ron and Harry -- and > as it turns out, his safety -- because it was best for the house. And that's an interesting scene too. He doesn't really risk his friendship with them at all. Instead, he comes right out and *reminds* them that in doing what he is doing, he is specifically *obeying their orders.* And then he all but dares them to attack him. I begin to see a pattern emerging here. Do you? Look, Neville may lack confidence, but he knows the score. He may not be able to hold up against the Social Imperius, but by God he's not going to succumb to it without putting up *some* form of resistance. And so he plays to lose. Neville plays to lose. Playing to lose is the only avenue of resistance he has open to him, because he can't yet muster the confidence or the courage or the sheer strength of will to come right out and say: "No. I WON'T." I live in hopes that this might change. But Neville's behavior in PS/SS is really pretty godawfully depressing, if you ask me. It's the story of his failure to uphold the virtues of his House. He fails, he fails miserably, and then everyone and his brother comes along and pats him on the back and *praises* him for his failure. Just look at how he responds to Dumbledore's point award at the end of the book, will you? He isn't happy. He isn't smiling. He is "white with shock." Harry thinks it's because he's astonished and *pleased.* Then, we know all about Harry's track record when it comes to interpreting other people, right? Mind you, I do think that Neville is brave. I think he's astonishingly brave. The kid's got plenty of raw courage. Unfortunately, it's just not the sort of courage that his culture values in the least, which means that he has to work at least five times as hard as your typical Joe Warrior Gryffindor type to manifest it. And Neville still needs a lot of work with that whole "manifesting it" part. He needs a *lot* of work with that. He proved that in PS/SS. Where Neville shows that he *is* capable of manifesting real courage, on the other hand, is when he he asks a girl to the Ball, gets rejected, and then goes right on to ask a different girl. That's courage. Admitting to losing his passwords is courage. And of course, the fact that he has never once tried to use his parents' plight to leverage anyone into showing him the slightest bit of pity or mercy or plain old-fashioned slack is extremely courageous. Most of all, though, Neville wears fuzzy slippers. At the age of *thirteen.* He wears them, and as far as we can tell, he wears them without shame. *That* is the sort of thing that lets me know that he belongs in House Gryffindor. His behavior in PS/SS, though? Oh, no. I don't think so. Of course, the sad thing about all of this is that JKR seems to have not the slightest *idea* what she's talking about whenever she writes about Neville. I therefore strongly suspect that she's going to send him off in a direction that will depress me just as profoundly as the end of PS/SS did. (For my rant about where I would *like* to see Neville go in the canon, see Message #34856). Darrin: > -- Full disclosure: I came late to the HP books and I was able to > read all four for the first time right in a row. The scene where > Dumbledore gives Neville the winning 10 points is where I said: "I > see now what the hype was about." Full disclosure myself? The end of PS/SS absolutely turned my stomach, and Neville's plotline was a big reason for that (Marina can guess what the other one was, I'm guessing ). I just have so little patience with that particular After School Special interpretation of averse-to-conflict child characters. They really do bug me no end. It was quite some time before I could even steel myself to pick up the second book, and the first volume remains to this day my very least favorite of the four. -- Elkins From goddess at yaoigoddess.com Thu Jun 20 20:34:13 2002 From: goddess at yaoigoddess.com (Rochelle) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:34:13 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sexuality in HP (WAS So, why did Snape turn on Voldermort?) References: Message-ID: <3D123C45.E1FA002F@yaoigoddess.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40123 jenny_ravenclaw wrote: > > > As interesting an interpretation of the text as this is, I disagree. > Why can't Harry and Ron's friendship be just that? Personally, I think it is, and again, here's what I said: > 1)From the "easily ignored" category, we have the thing that Harry > would "sorely miss" [p.463] which, of course, turned out to be Ron > [p.498] Granted, this is innocent enough; Harry IS ron's closest > friend. But especially when given the fact that two of the other > three competitors had to rescue their girlfriends/dance dates (Krum > had to save Hermione; Cedric had to save Cho), the homoerotic subtext > here isn't that hard to find. Note that I placed that episode under the "easily ignored" category, i.e. something that's highly debatable and in all likelihood innocent... but, if you wish, to, you CAN take it in a riskier direction very easily. It all depends on how you want to see it. > Perhaps we would *like* JKR to take a risk and write a gay character. *g* Maybe she already has. Although I have no proof of this, for some odd reason, Remus Lupin sets off my gaydar, and I know of quite a few people -- even people who aren't necessarily slash fans -- who just suspect he is without really knowing why. > However, I can't > imagine that happening, so for now, I'll have to say that any > homoerotic subtext is in the imagination. Then again, I'd say H/H is > too, but once again, that's just me. All in the imagination, eh? I notice you didn't say anything about the incident near the end of GoF. *g* Of course, given how... ah... touchy that part of the story was with all its sticky implications, I wouldn't blame you for not wanting to talk about it. *Rochelle. -- http://www.YaoiGoddess.com/ --No longer only slash. http://www.fanfiction.net/profile.php?userid=26023 --My fics on FFN. http://www.YaoiGoddess.com/light/ --Dying of the Light: A history of Severus Snape, Dark Arts prodigy turned Death Eater. ------------------ From goddess at yaoigoddess.com Thu Jun 20 20:42:37 2002 From: goddess at yaoigoddess.com (Rochelle) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 16:42:37 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sexuality in HP (WAS So, why did Snape turn on Voldermort?) References: Message-ID: <3D123E3D.5A30CD56@yaoigoddess.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40124 Apologies if I don't get to everything in this post (which I know I won't) right here. But there is one thing that I just wanted to clear up right away. ssk7882 wrote: > > > 4)CoS, pages 285-286 where Percy goes to great lengths to keep Ginny > > from telling anyone what she caught him doing. All right, so it > > turns out that he was kissing his new girlfriend [p.341]. But up > > until that gets revealed, you know very well what you THOUGHT he > > was doing! ;) > > Hmmm? You've lost me here, Rochelle. Weren't we supposed to be > thinking that Percy was messing about with Salazar's basilisk? Ah... not necessarily. *g* I guess you have to hang out on fan fiction lists to get this one, but nearly everyone I know of thought that Percy had been caught masturbating. Given the flustered way he was acting and how eager he was to shut Ginny up, that seemed like the most obvious choice. From what I've heard (not that I'd know from experience or anything), that's how people usually behave when they're, erm, caught in the act. And as soon as I have a bit more time, I promise to get back to the elephant. ;) *Rochelle. :) -- http://www.YaoiGoddess.com/ --No longer only slash. http://www.fanfiction.net/profile.php?userid=26023 --My fics on FFN. http://www.YaoiGoddess.com/light/ --Dying of the Light: A history of Severus Snape, Dark Arts prodigy turned Death Eater. ------------------ From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Thu Jun 20 22:44:58 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 22:44:58 -0000 Subject: Sexuality in HP (WAS So, why did Snape turn on Voldermort?) In-Reply-To: <3D123C45.E1FA002F@yaoigoddess.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40125 Jenny (re a gay character in HP): > > However, I can't > > imagine that happening, so for now, I'll have to say that any > > homoerotic subtext is in the imagination. Rochelle: > > All in the imagination, eh? I notice you didn't say anything about the > incident near the end of GoF. *g* Of course, given how... ah... touchy > that part of the story was with all its sticky implications, I wouldn't > blame you for not wanting to talk about it. > Well, I'll go where Jenny didn't and say that your and Elkins' interpretation of the graveyard scene didn't occur to me. As for the imagination, where else can any subtext be? The only question is, is it in JKR's imagination, and even that's pretty nearly irrelevant, according to some. David From wmginnypowell at msn.com Thu Jun 20 22:33:26 2002 From: wmginnypowell at msn.com (merimom3) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 22:33:26 -0000 Subject: Mail Owls (was Hogwarts population) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40126 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "eriktz" wrote: > Do you think it is reasonable to assume that if there were a > thousand or so students at Hogwarts only 100 or so owls would be > delivering mail on the first day? Maybe they have magically conquered junk mail? I know without it, I'd hardly get any mail at all. > Another thing just occured to me. Why does the mail at Hogwarts > arrive every morning, when it seems at other times the mail comes at > just about anytime anywhere? Do you think Hogwarts monitors all the > owls coming in and only allows them to deliver at specific times as > not to disturb class? Interesting questions which I cannot answer. However, I wondered if anyone else had noticed that owls are nocturnal, so why are they delivering mail during the day at all? Presumably owls were chosen for their stealth; i.e., since they fly at night, most Muggles wouldn't/don't notice them. But then there they are flying about at all times of the day delivering mail. Look how they swarmed over Privet Drive. Not the best way to maintain the secrecy of the WW, IMHO. Ginny From wmginnypowell at msn.com Thu Jun 20 22:43:45 2002 From: wmginnypowell at msn.com (merimom3) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 22:43:45 -0000 Subject: Wizard longevity and Harry's pubescence Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40127 I had a thought that might tie together some of the things that have been being tossed about her over the last week. 1. Wizards live longer than Muggles. (Dumbledore is 150, even, apparently, without the aid of something like the SS) 2. Harry and the gang seem to be reaching adolescence at a slower pace than we might expect. I believe that 1 explains 2. If your life span is doubled, perhaps the time it takes you to mature is also doubled, or at least lengthened somewhat. Now the fact that wizards and witches seem to be given adult-like privileges and responsibilities at Muggle-mature ages seems to contradict this (Apparate license at 17; Percy gets a job right out of Hogwarts, when he is presumably 18). But you could look at these things as lower-level, comparable to getting one's driver's license at 16 (in the US) or being able to work at 14. We don't know when more important milestones might be reached, like when one could vote (if there is any of that in the WW) or marry or sign legal documents. To put it concretely, maybe learning to Apparate at 17 is like getting a learner's driver's license at 15, putting wizards and witches two years behind Muggles in maturity. This fits with the delays we seem to be seeing, and seems a small price to pay for living more than a century. Ginny From rowen_lm at yahoo.com Thu Jun 20 20:42:57 2002 From: rowen_lm at yahoo.com (Liz Muir) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 13:42:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Unknown Students was "QTTA Possible FLINT" In-Reply-To: <1024592529.2346.4889.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020620204257.55725.qmail@web20910.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40128 Athena said: >>I also noticed a few names I hadn't seen before in any of the books. (Although maybe they are there in the famous toss off a name and make it seem meaningless passages.) Does anyone recognize these names: B. Dunstan K. Bundy J. Domy S. Capper<< See also the school list from HP & Me. Here's all the students (and their house affiliations) who are on the list and haven't been introduced: (Some of them are a little hard to make out. ^^;) Corner, Michael (H) Cornjost(?), Stephen (R) Dowis, Tracy (S) Gat(something), Kevin (R) Goldabrin(?), Anthony (H) Gringrass, (?) (S) Hopkins, Wayne (H) Toneo, Megan (H) Li, Su (R) If anyone else wants to look over the list and see if they can make out the letters better, by all means! The odd thing is none of the students mentioned on the QTTA list are on the HP&Me list. Hmm. ===== 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!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From dicentra at xmission.com Fri Jun 21 00:00:35 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 00:00:35 -0000 Subject: Sexuality in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40129 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > But then, the entire graveyard sequence is really just one great > massive sado-masochistic orgyfest, don't you think? I mean, the > sexualization of the language throughout those chapters really is > unrelenting. There's no doubt in my mind that Voldemort is getting off on something here. I just don't think the erotic imagery is necessarily pointing to homoeroticism, per se. I think Voldemort, as a predator, is getting off on killing (ever hear the noises a cat makes when a bird flies nearby?). He's probably too dehumanized to care about the sex of his victim. However, Harry is his Ultimate Foe, and getting rid of him means acheiving the power he's been looking for all his life. (This also applies to Riddle's reaction to Harry.) And since power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, it's no wonder he gets all hot and bothered. As for whether his excitement is genuinely sexual or only metaphorically so, I'd prefer not to guess. Because if it's the former, it buries the needle on the EWWWW scale, as far as I'm concerned. On the other hand, the problem with sexualized language is that it's not specialized language. I mean that many of the euphemisms we have for sexual things are extremely ordinary words. I've been around people who, to amuse themselves, interpret everything I say as sexual innuendo. They laugh at how I try to avoid saying something they can twist, but I end up being unsuccessful. It's actually very difficult to use ordinary language without invoking a word or phrase that can be made sexual-sounding. Even in writing this paragraph, I've had to choose my words carefully because of the context. As for JKR's use of language, the ecstasy she describes might be sexual or it might not. Mystics frequently describe their encounters with the divine using quasi-sexual imagery, but only because they're trying to describe intimacy and union. They're not getting off on God or whatever. Similarly, Voldemort's return to a physical body is bound to be a sensual experience for him because as a noxious fume he couldn't touch things. It doesn't surprise me that he strokes his wand gently: he's finally got his old power back, his trusty wand, his means to murder, which seems to be his ultimate pleasure. Freudians would say that wand = phallus = potency. But it's true in GoF only if JKR buys into Freud. Because maybe a cigar, in this case, is just a cigar. --Dicentra, who'd better quit now From skelkins at attbi.com Fri Jun 21 00:27:00 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 00:27:00 -0000 Subject: "Malfoy Is Mabel" and Genre Expectation (WAS: Names) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40130 Pen Robinson wrote: > Anyone remember my post equating Draco to Mabel or Veronica? > Probably not. Never mind. Oh, I do! I do! Pick me! Pick me! Yes, I remember "Malfoy is Mabel!" In fact, I've had it sitting around for ages, trying to think of some response that wouldn't be a naught but a "me too." For those watching at home: in message #39144, Pen wrote about a genre convention of the old-fashioned boarding school stories from which the HP books are, in part, derived. Pen wrote (excerpted from message #39144): > Malfoy is Mabel. Or possibly Veronica. > No, really. Come on, doesn't anyone else remember those delicious > Girls' Boarding School stories we... well, I, at any rate, used to > read? Stories in which Our Heroine (Pippa, or Daisy, or something > similarly wholesome), the poverty-stricken but noble-in-character > scholarship pupil arrived at a Jolly Good School and was promptly > picked on by The Nasty Little Rich Girl (Veronica or Mabel) because > she had No Money and came from a Poor Family. Our Heroine underwent > many trials, petty nastinesses of all kinds were inflicted by Mabel > (or Veronica), but Virtue Triumphed In The End. Usually there was a > Poignant Scene in which Our Heroine came to Mabel's (or Veronica's) > rescue, and Mabel (or Veronica) made a tearful recantation and > Avowal of Friendship. Hee. Oh, yes. I remember these. I found them bizarrely fascinating as a child. They were just so utterly alien to my life. Like reading about classical Athens, you know. Or Middle Earth. Or perhaps (given that I always thought those Jolly Good Schools sounded downright dystopian -- as, for that matter, I do Hogwarts) more like tales from the Gulag. But indeed, that was precisely how they always worked. The "Rescue and Redeem" scenario was always the order of the day in the boarding school story. Genre precedent here, of course, suggests that Draco Malfoy may well have a life-debt to Harry Potter looming menacingly in his future. This possibility has also been strongly suggested by fact that the text has been encouraging the reader to draw parallels between Harry- Draco and James-Snape ever since the end of the very first book. It's always tricky dealing with genre precedent with the HP books, though, because the series is such an utter genre soup. This is a large part of its appeal, of course. I also think that it's the reason that we see speculations covering such an incredible generic range proposed on this list. Pip's "Spy Game" theory adheres to the conventions of the Le Carre-style espionage genre. "Redeemable Draco With D/H Ship" looks to the conventions of Romance. Pippin's "Lestrange Is Loose!" looked (quite self-consciously and entertainingly) straight to Agatha Christie, as -- far less self- consciously -- does her Evil!Lupin, IMO. "Fourth Man," despite its espionage-derived name, is also rooted firmly in Christie. "Ron As Seventh Son" is YA fantasy. "Harry Is the Heir of Gryffindor" is epic fantasy. And so forth. The HP books do not really belong wholly to *any* of these genres, but JKR has borrowed elements of all of them in brewing up her soup, and so it is unsurprising that they should all find themselves represented when people try to speculate about where the series might be going next. Of course, the fact that the series *is* such genre soup also accounts for people's wide and dramatic variance in what sort of future speculations they consider to be "canonically plausible." If what you're picking up on while you read the books are all of the boarding school story conventions, then suggestions that by Book Five the students are all going to be engaged in some sort of grim warfare are likely to strike you as utterly ludicrous. If you're looking to the epic fantasy influences, on the other hand, then you're more likely to be *expecting* the story to "take to the field" in Book Five, as fantasy novels are often structured to do precisely that once past their midpoints. And of course, if you're looking to JKR's Agatha Christie influences, then *no* secret identity or missing person plotline can ever seem too convoluted or too improbable to be canonically likely, so long as all of the usual Christie textual clues seem to have been laid properly in their places. But back to Malfoy As Mabel (or Veronica), I do find it reasonably likely that JKR might eventually smack Draco with a life-debt. It's been amply foreshadowed, and there is strong genre precedent. It does seem a bit less likely to me post-POA, though. After all, how many times can JKR really plan on pulling that whole life-debt schtick? Well. Yeah. So who can say? -- Elkins From goddess at yaoigoddess.com Thu Jun 20 23:56:25 2002 From: goddess at yaoigoddess.com (Rochelle) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 19:56:25 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sexuality in HP (WAS So, why did Snape turn on Voldermort?) References: Message-ID: <3D126BA9.331AD46D@yaoigoddess.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40131 davewitley wrote: > > Well, I'll go where Jenny didn't and say that your and Elkins' > interpretation of the graveyard scene didn't occur to me. What I meant was that the subject -- a VERY possible rape metaphor in the GoF graveyard scene -- is a sticky one, and that I wouldn't blame anyone for just plain not wanting to discuss it, whether it occured to them or not. > As for the imagination, where else can any subtext be? The only > question is, is it in JKR's imagination, and even that's pretty > nearly irrelevant, according to some. Not to me. It's pretty rare that a concept sticks with me stongly enough for me to be so positive there's something to it (I'm usually very flexible), and this just happens to be one of them. If JKR intended something completely different, I'd be very curious to know what it is since it's impossible for me to read that scene as perfectly innocent. *Rochelle. -- http://www.YaoiGoddess.com/ --No longer only slash. http://www.fanfiction.net/profile.php?userid=26023 --My fics on FFN. http://www.YaoiGoddess.com/light/ --Dying of the Light: A history of Severus Snape, Dark Arts prodigy turned Death Eater. ------------------ From alina at distantplace.net Fri Jun 21 01:13:15 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 21:13:15 -0400 Subject: prof. Sinistra Message-ID: <012f01c218c0$dbcb0ca0$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40132 I don't think this has been mentioned before, but I just discovered that sinistrophobia means the fear of left-handedness or objects on the left side of the body. Could prof. Sinistra's name be related to the word "left" somehow? Left of the political spectrum, maybe? Of course I could just be looking too deep into this and it was developed from the word "sinister" meaning unlucky, unfortunate or fraudulent. Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ "I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 13/06/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From editor at texas.net Fri Jun 21 01:42:22 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 20:42:22 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sexuality in HP (WAS So, why did Snape turn on Voldermort?) References: Message-ID: <001c01c218c4$e5059480$707663d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40133 Elkins said > I've deprefixed this thread, since it's really more about sexuality > and homoerotic overtones in the HP books in general than it is about > any particular relationship or romantic speculation. > > *However.* This post does contain discussion of both homoeroticism > and sexual sadism. We don't have a prefix for that. So consider > this a warning: if that sort of thing bothers you, then you'd be well > advised to skip now. Okay. The only reason I post this is because there is a tendency on the list, caused by the "me, too" prohibition, for silence to be taken as consent in some cases. I am not arguing the analysis at all, at all--it looks like a perfectly valid interpretation. The thing that I must say, though, is that none of this, no inkling or trickle or faintest flicker of this, ever occurred to me in any of my many re-readings, until I read Elkins' post. Am I the only one who never sees things like this? Am I the only one who read this with total amazement? I've been feeling a bit abnormal anyway, watching that thread on sexuality and the age of discovery, and how our 13 and 14 year old hero/ines are behind the curve. I must truly be some kind of dinosaur or have a hormonal imbalance or something--I kissed a friend of my brother's just before my seventeenth birthday, with no real feeling other than a desire to not have spent my whole sixteenth year Sweet. But that's it, then, until college, pretty much; I never even dated in high school. So my question to the list is: how many of you really got the sexual undertones that Elkins has pointed up? *As* sexual? Because I did notice the particular word usage, and its effectiveness in creating a creepy atmosphere, in all instances quoted--it just never struck me as sexual. Of course, I'm one of the ones who thinks sexual by-play will get in the way of a good story....but then again, I'm abnormal, aren't I? --Amandageist From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 21 02:01:25 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 02:01:25 -0000 Subject: Mail Owls (was Hogwarts population) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40134 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "merimom3" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "eriktz" wrote: > > Do you think it is reasonable to assume that if there were a > > thousand or so students at Hogwarts only 100 or so owls would be > > delivering mail on the first day? > > Maybe they have magically conquered junk mail? I know without it, > I'd hardly get any mail at all. > > > Another thing just occured to me. Why does the mail at Hogwarts > > arrive every morning, when it seems at other times the mail comes > at > > just about anytime anywhere? Do you think Hogwarts monitors all > the > > owls coming in and only allows them to deliver at specific times > as > > not to disturb class? > > Interesting questions which I cannot answer. However, I wondered if > anyone else had noticed that owls are nocturnal, so why are they > delivering mail during the day at all? Presumably owls were chosen > for their stealth; i.e., since they fly at night, most Muggles > wouldn't/don't notice them. But then there they are flying about at > all times of the day delivering mail. Look how they swarmed over > Privet Drive. Not the best way to maintain the secrecy of the WW, > IMHO. > > Ginny Since the owls are delivering mail at breakfast, it would make sense that they are returning from a night of travel to get mail or deliver mail. Once the owls drop the mail, they head off to the owlery to sleep. As for the population at Hogwarts, I wonder if 1000 students is just a number JKR picked out of a hat, so to speak, during that interview? It is possible that 1000 students attend classes there, but to introduce all of them in the books would simply be impossible. Gretchen From bard7696 at aol.com Thu Jun 20 22:57:45 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 22:57:45 -0000 Subject: The Sorting of Neville Longbottom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40135 > > Darrin wrote: > > > The boy took on two boys twice his size. And Elkins wrote: > > Yes. It's interesting that, isn't it? Why did he go for Crabbe and > Goyle? Why not weedy little Draco Malfoy, against whom he might at > least have stood a fighting chance? Why the kids that he *knew* > could land him straight in the hospital -- and not just one of them, > but both of them at once? > > Could it be that he was trying to make a *point?* > Yeah, that he is courageous. By taking on Crabbe and Goyle, Neville let Ron get some great shots in on Malfoy. What would have happened if Ron and Neville both would have attacked Draco? Crabbe and Goyle would have turned them into meat pizza from behind. > Darrin also wrote: > > > The boy risked his friendship with Hermione, Ron and Harry -- and > > as it turns out, his safety -- because it was best for the house. And Elkins wrote: > And that's an interesting scene too. He doesn't really risk his > friendship with them at all. Instead, he comes right out and > *reminds* them that in doing what he is doing, he is specifically > *obeying their orders.* And then he all but dares them to attack him. Wait, I forgot how Neville went from being the victim of Hermione's body-bind to somehow instigating all of this. It was Neville who in part cost Gryffindor 150 points and he was trying to make up for it in his own way. The only pattern I'm seeing so far is of a puny, untalented kid who still tries to defend his friends -- fighting with Ron in a two-on- three situation -- and his house -- trying to keep the Trio from sneaking around. What you're saying is that Neville, consciously or unconsciously -- and your "know the score" comment would indicate CONSCIOUS behavior -- has put himself in the way of two larger boys' fists and submitted to a body-bind from Hermione because it is the easy way out? I don't buy it. > > Look, Neville may lack confidence, but he knows the score. He may > not be able to hold up against the Social Imperius, but by God he's > not going to succumb to it without putting up *some* form of > resistance. > > And so he plays to lose. > > Neville plays to lose. Playing to lose is the only avenue of > resistance he has open to him, because he can't yet muster the > confidence or the courage or the sheer strength of will to come right > out and say: "No. I WON'T." > Standing up to Crabbe and Goyle allowed Ron to get some shots in and score a victory -- petty and juvenile, but a victory -- against Slytherin. Standing up to the Trio ended up giving Gryffindor the House Cup and I'd bet that's EXACTLY why Dumbledore gave it to him, to encourage the spark of courage. Elkins: > I live in hopes that this might change. But Neville's behavior in > PS/SS is really pretty godawfully depressing, if you ask me. It's > the story of his failure to uphold the virtues of his House. He > fails, he fails miserably, and then everyone and his brother comes > along and pats him on the back and *praises* him for his failure. > > Just look at how he responds to Dumbledore's point award at the end > of the book, will you? He isn't happy. He isn't smiling. He > is "white with shock." > > Harry thinks it's because he's astonished and *pleased.* > > Then, we know all about Harry's track record when it comes to > interpreting other people, right? > You fail to say what you think Neville's reaction means. He's shocked that he is being rewarded here. We're talking about a kid that doesn't get too many rewards for his behavior. He'd never won a point for Gryffindor, remember? He's being rewarded for bravery, and as I said, Dumbledore could have awarded the points in any order he wanted. He could have just given Harry 70 points and been done with it. But he chose to give Neville 10 points. Had this been a one-shot book with no sequels, I might buy the "After School Special" routine, but since we are stretching out over a series here, I'd say he chose specifically to build up Neville's confidence. Oh, and I don't see where Harry thinks anything about Neville's reaction. I've got page 306 right in front of me and there is nothing about Harry's interpretation of Neville being white with shock. Are you talking about another of the four books? > Darrin: > > > -- Full disclosure: I came late to the HP books and I was able to > > read all four for the first time right in a row. The scene where > > Dumbledore gives Neville the winning 10 points is where I said: "I > > see now what the hype was about." > Elkins: > Full disclosure myself? The end of PS/SS absolutely turned my > stomach, and Neville's plotline was a big reason for that (Marina can > guess what the other one was, I'm guessing ). I just have so > little patience with that particular After School Special > interpretation of averse-to-conflict child characters. They really > do bug me no end. It was quite some time before I could even steel > myself to pick up the second book, and the first volume remains to > this day my very least favorite of the four. > Well, obviously we have two different world views here. I fail to see exactly why it turned your stomach. The "after school special interpretation of averse-to-conflict child characters" tells me exactly nothing. Perhaps I am a little too romantic and I enjoyed seeing the picked-on kid get a little victory in the end. I mean, we can argue about the canon and whether this foreshadows great things for Neville or tragic things for Neville. We can psychoanalyze the kid to the point where it becomes almost laughable. But maybe JKR just set up a little happy ending for a supporting character, nothing more, nothing less. And in the other books, Neville's unlikely courage becomes a recurring theme. Perhaps it means nothing more than the little gag of having a new DADA teacher every year. Darrin -- Nope, I don't believe that. In book 7, Neville gets a heroic scene. Bank on it. Be there or be square or be depressed - if you must. From dicentra at xmission.com Fri Jun 21 02:48:55 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 02:48:55 -0000 Subject: Why Suspect Sirius? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40136 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > Sarah wrote: > > > One reason I would suspect Lupin as being somewhat-evil... During > > the Conversation in the shrieking shack, between Lupin and Sirius, > > Lupin, says that he was not told about the switch to Peter as the > > secret keeper, because Sirius suspected Lupin as being in alliance > > with Voldemort. > > > That doesn't really make sense. Why would Sirius and James suspect > > Lupin over Peter? > > Well, primarily, I think that they suspected him because he is a > werewolf. OK, then. That takes care of why James and Sirius suspected Lupin. Now, why did Lupin suspect Sirius? Hmm? Everyone knew James and Siri were like brothers and that James trusted Siri. Or is Lupin's casual "forgive me for believing *you* were the spy" apply only to Sirius's time in Azkaban? The suspicions that there was a spy amongst them predate the Potters' murders. Wouldn't Lupin have had *his* suspicions? Wouldn't he have to wonder if Sirius was the one? If not, was he suspecting Peter and didn't say anything? Or did he *know* it was Peter and didn't sound the alarm? Oh HO! LYCANTRHOPE raises its vulpine head! --Dicentra, who reads that passage as applying to both pre- and post- Pottermurder From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Fri Jun 21 03:17:42 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 23:17:42 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sexuality in HP Message-ID: <88.19e8f1ad.2a43f4d6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40137 In a message dated 6/20/2002 9:45:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, editor at texas.net writes: << The thing that I must say, though, is that none of this, no inkling or trickle or faintest flicker of this, ever occurred to me in any of my many re-readings, until I read Elkins' post. Am I the only one who never sees things like this? Am I the only one who read this with total amazement? I've been feeling a bit abnormal anyway, watching that thread on sexuality and the age of discovery, and how our 13 and 14 year old hero/ines are behind the curve. I must truly be some kind of dinosaur or have a hormonal imbalance or something--I kissed a friend of my brother's just before my seventeenth birthday, with no real feeling other than a desire to not have spent my whole sixteenth year Sweet. But that's it, then, until college, pretty much; I never even dated in high school. >> I have a younger brother who's going into the 8th grade, who's read all of the books. After all the debating, I was curious to see what he thought of the situation regarding the sexual tones (not that I asked him like that..he would've thrown something at me). I asked if he thought Ron and Hermione liked eachother, and if people that age (which is his age, 13/14) act like that. He said that some of his friends still think girls have cooties, while others are already on the prowl. I think that while not all kids are into dating, many are. I know that when I was 13 and 14, I had plenty of crushes, and plenty of games of Spin the Bottle, which seemed like the most exciting thing at the time. To me, Harry and Co. do seem a bit more naive than I was at that age, but JKR might just be focusing more on Good vs. Evil than sexuality...although there is innuendo which I picked up right away. My brother readily agreed that there was something between Ron and Hermione, because, he admitted, when he liked a girl, he sometimes teasted her, just to get her attention. Interestingly, my brother did pick up a little bit of the 'innuendo' at the end of GoF, and wondered exactly why Voldie was caressing his wand so... although he told me that his other friends didn't pick up on anything. I'm guessing that to most children, it doesn't seem like anything, but to us older folks, there IS innuendo there....either that or we all have dirty minds :) *Chelsea* (hopefully this makes a bit of sense, and isn't me just rambling) From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri Jun 21 03:30:08 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 03:30:08 -0000 Subject: TBAY: HP and the Superfluous Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40138 The Captain strides briskly through the brig of the Big Bang Destroyer, completing her inventory of Dud-Worthy theories. Dementor!Snape glides easily around his cell, which is adjacent to the SHIPping wing. Memory Charm Neville stares at the ceiling in a nearby cell, posters of Faith covering the walls. The Captain nods to herself, checking the boxes on the manifest with a flourish. Dicentra appears at the Captain's shoulder, her uniform soaked from another swim in Theory Bay. She wrings a stream of water from her long silvery hair, splashing the Captain's steel-toed boots. The Captain heaves a disgusted sigh. "Look at you! I will *never* understand why you don't just *Apparate!*" "Captain," Dicentra says excitedly, "there's a new vessel in the Bay. I *saw* it. And it's *huge!*" The Captain's eyes narrow with suspicion. "Huge? You mean Bigger than Big Bang?" "Oh, no," Dicentra says, "*nothing* is Bigger than Big Bang. We all know *that.* But this new ship has a lot of potential. It looks like it was built to hold canons that are *superfluous*!" "Superfluous canons?" The Captain frowns. "Isn't that a . . . a . . . . um . . . " There is an awkward silence. A seagull squawks in the distance. The hull of the Destroyer creaks ominously. "An oxymoron?" Dicentra suggests helpfully. The Captain balls her hands into fists, fixing Dicentra with an icy stare. "What did you say to me?" "An oxymoron," Dicentra repeats quickly. "You know, a contradiction in terms? Well anyway, this new vessel is *amazing.* It's almost ready to go. It just needs someone to fix it up a little. You know, put some more canons on it. I've already found a pretty good one without even trying. You've *got* to see this!" Dicentra grabs the Captain's arm roughly and pulls her to the deck. Shielding her eyes against the setting sun, Dicentra points across the Bay to a long, flat-bottomed boat, one hulking canon plainly visible on the starboard side. "My canon is the only one there. It's a *pointless scene,* I'm sure of it! Can you *believe* it, a superfluous scene, right there in PoA, the best Harry Potter book of them all! Look!" Dicentra flips to a passage in Prisoner of Azkaban, Cliffnotes Edition: > Harry wakes up before dawn, thinking that the howling wind of the > storm awoke him. But no, Peeves was floating above him, "blowing >hard in his ear." He asks Peeves what the sam hill he was doing >that for, but Peeves just cackles and blows himself out of the >room. It's 4:30am, and Harry tries to go back to sleep, but the >howling of the storm and probably game nerves prevent it. He gets >up, gets dressed, and goes into the common room. On his way out, he >stops Crookshanks from getting into the bedroom. He scolds the >cat, saying there are other mice to chase, why doesn't he just >leave Scabbers alone. He thinks that the Quidditch match won't be >cancelled on account of the storm, and that Cedric Diggory is >heavier than he is and will be less likely to be blown off course. >He whiles away the hours before dawn, rising occasionally to stop >Crookshanks, and when it seems like it's time for breakfast, goes >down to get some grub. Sir Cadogan challenges him as he leaves and >he tells him to shut up. In the main hall, he has some oatmeal, >and the team shows up and talks about the day's game. The Captain looks up, her brow furrowed. "So?" "My point exactly!" Dicentra cries. "It's a *nothing* scene. Nothing happens and nothing matters. What is this scene *doing* in a great book like PoA?" The Captain pauses, thinking hard. "Filler?" she says. "That's right!" Dicey exclaims. It's just filler. Just adding pages to make the book *longer,* just like we all did in high school. JKR is just filling up pages with *nothing at all,* that's what I think." "Now that you mention it," says the Captain thoughtfully, "JKR does do that. She does that *a lot,* doesn't she? She sneaks in some *filler* on us when we least expect it. And I can *prove* it!" "There's more?" Dicentra asks in disbelief. "Oh yeah," the Captain says, reaching for her pocket version of Goblet of Fire, Cliffnotes Edition. "Have a look at Chapter Six, 'The Portkey': "Harry wakes up. He and Ron get dressed. Mrs. Weasley makes them breakfast. They discuss apparating. Mrs. Weasley Summons some toffees. They become winded walking to the top of a hill, chatting about Portkeys and the QWC. They meet Amos Diggory, who is snide to Harry. They find and touch a boot." "Whoa!" Dicentra says. "That sure sounds like filler to me. They wake up, eat, walk up a hill and touch a boot? That's *it*?" "Well, to be fair, we do learn a few important things," says the Captain. "We see Mrs. Weasley use the Summoning Charm, but Harry learns that later anywya and uses it in the Third Task, so JKR doesn't have to foreshadow it here. We do learn about apparating, but we see that later, too. We learn about Portkeys, which could easily be slipped in at the beginning of the next chapter. We meet up with Cedric, but we see plenty of him later. And we meet Mr. Diggory, but who cares? That hardly justifies *a whole chapter,* now does it?" The Captain nods, smiling broadly at her success. "So that's pretty darn superfluous, and it's not just part of a chapter; it's a *whole chapter!* An entire *superfluous* chapter!" "You know what *I* think?" Dicentra breathes. "I think JKR is getting paid by *the word!* "I think you're right. There's no other explanation, is there?" The Captain closes Cliffnotes with a snap. "And you know what this means, don't you?" "Oh, no," Dicentra moans. "No! Not again. You're . . . you're not going to steal my *barge* are you? You . . . you already stole my black hedgehog ? " "Watch it there!" says the Captain, her voice rising. "I did *not* steal that hedgehog. You *gave* him to me of your own free ?" "You are *not* taking my barge!" Dicentra howls, stamping her foot. "Like I want to desert Big Bang for a *barge,* the Captain sneers. "You can be the Captain of the Barge. Just take that load of pointless scenes straight to the Theory Bay Landfill where they belong, OK?" "Really?" Dicentra says, beaming. "Really? You mean it?" "Yeah, I mean it. Go on," the Captain says easily, "swim on out there to *your* barge. "And Dicey?" The Captain reaches deep into one pocket. Dicentra pauses, straddling the deck rail, her hair fanning out behind her in the wind. "If you're really going to take care of that barge properly, you're going to need your toothbrush." *************** Cindy llllll llllll = = = = = = = = For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin20Files/hypoth eticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri Jun 21 03:58:24 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 03:58:24 -0000 Subject: Hagrid the Betrayer/ Hagrid, the one who can't handle his job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40139 Jenny wrote: > --jenny from ravenclaw, wondering where her fellow Hagird-basher, > Cindy is right now - grrrr ************* Fear not! I could never let a Hagrid thread go by without hopping on for a little ride. ;-) ***************** Jenny wrote: >What I meant was that Hagrid's character is written as someone who >more like a child than an adult. His character is quite well >developed, but his maturity within his characterization is not. If >Hagrid was a real person, I would see him as a man who is acts like >a boy. Hagrid bashers are so *misunderstood*! See, it's not that we *detest* Hagrid necessarily. It's not that simple. I mean, it's not like he's *Evil* or anything. The problem is that Hagrid is being asked to fill a function that he shouldn't be asked to fill. He is being asked to be a guardian of Harry, someone who is preparing Harry to do whatever it is that he is so clearly destined to do. If Hagrid were just the groundskeeper (the way Filch is just the caretaker), there wouldn't be a problem. Hagrid could be child-like, the loveable oaf, and I would be *fine* with that. But instead, I'm asked to accept Hagrid as an authority figure in Harry's life (one who breaks rules as a matter of convenience and one who routinely exercises the most consistently poor judgment of any adult character in the books), first as Dumbledore's representative and then as a full-fledged *teacher.* I'm asked to believe that Dumbledore thinks Hagrid's weaknesses are to be tolerated. I'm asked to believe the other teachers get on with Hagrid and consider him a legitimate colleague (I cannot *imagine* why Snape doesn't hound Hagrid the way Snape hounds Neville). It's just a stretch. A poor fit between character and function. A wobbly idea from start to finish, IMHO. Jenny: > Hagrid's strongest moments IMO are the ones when he defends the >people he cares about. Ah, but even Hagrid's moments of fierce loyalty are also moments of misguided loyalty. Don't get me started on the pig tail thing again. No, don't even *go* there. And I didn't think much of Hagrid, the far bigger and stronger man, slamming Karkaroff against a tree. Can't Dumbledore fight his own battles just a little bit? I saw that scene as another example of Hagrid using violence on a far weaker individual without good cause. Jenny: >He's a weak link. Yes, I'm afraid he is. And I guess every team needs a weak link or the game would never end, huh? ;-) Cindy (feeling a bout of Lockhart bashing coming on) From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri Jun 21 05:13:50 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 05:13:50 -0000 Subject: Sexuality in HP (WAS So, why did Snape turn on Voldermort?) In-Reply-To: <001c01c218c4$e5059480$707663d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40140 Amanda snipped: > various sexual undertones, managing nicely to both put the point >across yet not be offensive> Agreed! Talk about threading the needle! ;-) Amanda: > Okay. The only reason I post this is because there is a tendency >on the list, caused by the "me, too" prohibition, for silence to be >taken as consent in some cases. I am not arguing the analysis at >all, at all--it looks like a perfectly valid interpretation. > > The thing that I must say, though, is that none of this, no >inkling or trickle or faintest flicker of this, ever occurred to me >in any of my many re-readings, until I read Elkins' post. Am I the >only one who never sees things like this? Am I the only one who >read this with total amazement? No, you're not. Like you, I saw the whole thing as creepy. I guess one reason the scene is so good is that JKR does seem to be using some rather, erm . . . icky devices to make it creepy. Had it been noticeable on a first read, then that would suggest that JKR was laying it on too thick. Besides, did anyone say that they picked all of this stuff up on a *first* reading? Geez, all I could think about in my first read of the graveyard scene was how JKR was going to wring 3 more books out of the series with the hero dead, dead, dead! Then again, that's just me. I haven't ever picked up on any of the big plot twists on a first read. Or any of the minor ones either. But OoP will be different! You just wait! Cindy (putting all of her eggs in the EverSoEvil!Moody basket) From elfundeb at aol.com Fri Jun 21 05:16:18 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 01:16:18 EDT Subject: Evil Lupin/Superfluous Scene Message-ID: <21.1fc42581.2a4410a2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40141 This is late once again, and perhaps not even Pippin cares anymore, but it was written and awaiting new computer hardware (don't ever pour coffee on your keyboard!) before I could post it. It covers four things (not in this order): (a) why I think the cauldronful of Wolfsbane was not superfluous but not an indicator of theft (spelled out in far too much detail, I'm afraid), (b) forgetfulness and secret-keeping, (c) who or what besides Lupin might have set the Dementors on Sirius, and (d) a recent addition, the non-superfluous scene. Pippin asked: why JKR told us there was extra wolfsbane potion around if it isn't important. "I made an entire cauldronful," Snape continued. "If you need more." Ch. 8 PoA.<< I offered: >> One thing Snape's comment tells me is that Snape is in control of the potion; he keeps it and doles it out to Lupin as needed. Lupin doesn't keep his own supply; he has to get it from Snape on a dose-by-dose basis. I think this is important to set up Snape's bringing the potion to Lupin's office on June 6.<<< Pippin responded: That could have been established without telling us that there was extra potion available. [snip] We are dealing with a work of art here. [snip] Every sentence serves a purpose, whether it's to entertain, inform, persuade or confuse. Now it could be that it's just a character note: "Snape is the kind of fellow who would make a huge batch of a difficult potion just because he can." Or maybe not. It's an odd place for an amusing character note, because we're supposed to see Snape's behavior in this scene as ominous, but it's a very good place for a clue. Yes, it was a clue (nothing is superfluous), but I don't believe it was put there to signal there was extra potion lying around on June 6 for Lupin to steal, because I don't think there was extra potion in June, certainly not from the cauldronful that Snape brewed in October. As you say, it doesn't make sense to assume that it's there just as a character reminder that Snape makes cauldrons full of potion to show off. JKR doesn't establish by any other means that Snape has a supply of the potion for Lupin and that Snape must deliver it or Lupin must come by to get what he needs. She tells us that Snape is keeping this potion in his office, so he knows exactly how much potion Lupin has taken. The cauldronful accomplishes this. Snape must also mention the cauldronful is because the conversation between him and Lupin is all misdirection. The mention of the full cauldron is the only part of the conversation that implies that Lupin needed more than a dose or two a week in advance to keep him safe. Without that remark, the inconsistency of the conversation in Lupin's office and Snape's arrival in his office on June 6 because Lupin had forgotten to take his potion that night (as opposed to a week before) would look like a FLINT, at least to LOONs like me. That's because on June 6 Lupin becomes a vicious werewolf because he fails to take his potion the evening of the full moon. Snape tells Lupin that he forgot to take the potion "tonight." But Halloween, when Harry saw Snape deliver the potion, is six days before the full moon. (Halloween takes place on the weekend (I seem to recall it was Saturday, but can't find anything confirming this), but it's not till the following Friday that the full moon occurs (it was the day before the first Quidditch match, which was the following Saturday, and Harry was late because Wood kept him in the hallway with last-minute strategies). It's only because (a) there's a cauldronful of potion on Halloween, six days before the full moon, and (b) Lupin says in the Shack that he takes the potion in the week before the full moon, that the two scenes match. What purpose did the misleading statements in Lupin's office serve? My take on it is that Lupin and Snape were both deliberately dissembling in front of Harry, presumably because if the students became aware of Lupin's condition, their parents would demand his resignation (and Dumbledore has no other candidates for the DADA job). Snape brings in the potion, sees Harry and realizes he has to be circumspect. Lupin, who wants as little attention paid to the potion as possible in Harry's presence, affects a smile, thanks Snape, and asks him to leave it on the desk. Then he changes the topic and begins talking about the grindylow. But Snape forces the potion issue, saying, "You should drink that directly, Lupin." Lupin again tries to brush him off. "Yes, yes, I will." But he's thinking, I don't want to discuss this potion. Not with Harry there. Snape picks up on this and decides to drop some more hints. "I made an entire cauldronful." Snape deliberately pauses here, for emphasis. "If you need more." Of course, Snape knows full well that Lupin needs more, but he can't say it directly. Lupin's response seems to be a deliberate attempt not to admit that he does need to take this potion regularly. "I should *probably* take some again tomorrow. Thanks very much, Severus." This phrasing rather neatly sets up Lupin's evasive reply to Harry's later question, that he's "been feeling a bit off-color" as though he had the flu, and only might need more medicine, which is a significant bit of misdirection for us readers. But Snape is really annoyed by Lupin's dismissiveness about the potion, and though is response ("Not at all.") is polite, he gives Lupin a look to signal his annoyance. I think it's after this little exchange that he devises his plan to substitute for Lupin during the full moon and give the class a little werewolf lesson, it being conveniently part of the third-year DADA curriculum. I think some of our differences here go to whether JKR puts all of her *clues* in the text to support the Whodunit aspect of the story or whether it goes to character development. In the case of the cauldronful of Wolfsbane potion, I think it does both, and without in any way indicating that there was extra potion around for Lupin to steal. It's Snape's way of dealing with Lupin's evasiveness in a situation where he's prohibited from saying what he really wants to say. Dicentra and the superfluous scene: The scene is in the middle of "Grim Defeat," right after Snape substitutes for Lupin and right before the Hufflepuff/Gryffindor Quidditch match where Harry sees the Grim and the Dementors knock himoff his broom (page 173, Scholastic edition). Harry wakes up before dawn, thinking that the howling wind of thestorm awoke him. But no, Peeves was floating above him, "blowing hardin his ear." He asks Peeves what the sam hill he was doing that for, but Peeves just cackles and blows himself out of the room. << Pippin correctly responds: This is Crookshanks' first Sirius-directed effort to nab Pettigrew. We don't know that on first reading, though Rowling helpfully offers us a hint: "mangy cur!" It also establishes that Peeves has access to password-protected Gryffindor tower. The ghosts and such don't usually invade the students' bedrooms. We get the impression from Myrtle that they're not really supposed to. Did Peeves break the rules at Crookshanks' instigation to distract Harry and get him to open the door ? We know he was willing to break a cabinet for NHN. It could be significant some time in the future that Poltergeists can get into otherwise inacessible places. His restlessness also paves the way for his first defeat at Quidditch. Though the immediate cause of defeat was the appearance of the Dementors, the omens of defeat are already there. Harry is presented as weakened and unable to resist in any way shape or form, through cold, wet, and exhaustion from lack of sleep. In addition, it very nicely parallels the night before the next Quidditch match, when he again sees Crookshanks prowling on the grounds and thinks it's the Grim; and the night before the last Quidditch match, when Harry again can't sleep and sees Crookshanks through the window, but with dog-Sirius this time. The scene establishes a new pattern of Harry's restlessness before Quidditch matches. Why do the Dementors go after Sirius? Pippin suggests: As soon as Peter gets away, and not before, Lupin disengages from Sirius and flees into the forest. Then, I assume, he summons the Dementors. He doesn't need to be in human form to do this since the Dementors can sense his human mind. Everyone is so interested in the question of how the Dementors were driven away that no one asks how they were summoned in the first place. But they can be called: Snape says that he will do it in the Shack. I'm still confused because I thought the original proposal was that Lupin was prepared to kill the lot of them, except Harry, but this makes it sound as though the only plan is to get the Dementors to get Sirius. There's no evidence that he went back to get Snape which he could have done, without being observed by the others, after the Dementors retreat, because the others were knocked out (he is, of course, not aware of HH2 observing). I can't figure out (a) what Lupin's scheme was for June 6, (b) why he thought it would work, (c) why he went ahead with it with HRH around, and (d) why he would have wanted Snape to follow him if his objective was to deal with Sirius. But more than that, I have an alternate suggestion. PoA states that Lupin gallops into the forest. According to the Lexicon map of the Hogwarts grounds, the Forbidden Forest is away from the entrance, which makes sense since there's no reason why there would be any entrances to Hogwarts in the forest. The Dementors arrive very quickly (Harry and Hermione have only enough time to check quickly on Ron), and it doesn't seem that Lupin would have time to run into the forest and then circle back to the entrances to round up the Dementors. But we aren't told where Pettigrew goes, only that he was scurrying through the grass and that he leaves before Lupin does. Pettigrew might not have gone directly to the forest. And Sirius appears not to go to the forest after Lupin, but "pounded away across the grounds." Pettigrew might have rounded up the Dementors himself. He would have had every incentive to get rid of Sirius immediately, since his evidence could convict Pettigrew. Lupin and the children also knew, but the evidence of children and a werewolf would count for less. Or (and forgive me for being boring) Pettigrew may simply have been running to the entrance to escape, with Sirius following. If Lupin was safely in the forest, Sirius would have wanted to go after Pettigrew, because he was the key to exonerating him. And as for why Sirius had turned back into a man, he would have needed to in order to capture Pettigrew. Maybe he was yelping because Pettigrew the rat was biting him in an attempt to escape (it says that the sound was that of a dog in pain, and remember that Scabbers once bit Goyle? Haven't people been wondering what the purpose of that was?), and maybe he didn't notice the approach of the Dementors because he was in dog form. But when he turned back into a man it was too late; the Dementors were too close. Just a thought. After all, long ago you asked to be talked out of this! Pippin on Lupin's forgetfulness: IMO, Rowling doesn't really establish that Lupin gets confused or forgetful under stress, not compared to Neville. Or Voldemort. (maybe *Voldemort's* been memory charmed?) Aside from the absent-minded Professor stereotype, all we have is Snape's comment about Lupin's lack of organization, and Lupin's statement that he's not much of a potion maker. That's clever. It inclines us to think that Lupin must be forgetful like Neville, without really showing us that he is. But Lupin doesn't seem so disorganized to me. His lessons are so well worked out. And then he remembers to pick up the Cloak. I actually don't think Lupin is forgetful at all. Why would he forget? It would reveal his secret. I think he was sitting in his office waiting for Snape to come with the potion, as he knew Snape would. He had the map out looking to see what HRH were up to, but he was also keeping an eye out for Snape's arrival. He didn't forget until he saw Pettigrew on the map. That was an extraordinary event that seems to have made several people forget a lot of things. Lupin forgot he still had another dose to take, and seems to think he had enough time even with the storytelling; Snape forgot to bring that gobletful to the Shrieking Shack, and then he hangs around listening to the conversation in his invisibility cloak. And Snape certainly cannot generally be described as forgetful, far less so than Lupin. Snape forgets nothing. There are parallels between Lupin and Neville, IMO, but the parallels go to the fact that both are secret-keepers. In fact, I think the issue of secret-keeping is one that looms large in the books generally, and only partly because secret-keeping furthers the mystery aspect of the plots. At least as interesting to me is the unrevealed secret behind each character and why they act as they do. Nearly everybody is keeping some kind of secret or other. There are secrets like who was the Secret-Keeper, which Sirius kept from everyone, including Dumbledore, with devastating consequences; there are secrets about who one is, like Lupin's lycanthropy; or one's legacy, like Neville's; about one's background such as Hagrid's giant mother; or the still unknown secrets Dumbledore is keeping from Harry. Secrets, their revelation, how they are revealed (Dumbledore trickling out only that information he knows Harry needs or can handle vs. Snape making revelations for their shock value) and the characters' handling of the issues they raise is a theme that looms ever larger with each successive book. We've already seen how Lupin deals with having his secrets revealed. He averts his eyes and runs back to his cave. We know what problems this trait has caused. But characters who don't keep secrets can also be a problem. How many times to Harry or Hermione have to shut up Ron because he is not careful about what he says? Openness is not always a positive trait when there's a war going on. Debbie, who has never read Agatha Christie but would be pleased to have Pippin recommend a good one for a first-time reader [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at aol.com Fri Jun 21 05:20:44 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 01:20:44 EDT Subject: The Spying Game Part II and Lucius the Cowardly Lion Message-ID: <1bd.553a3e1.2a4411ac@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40142 Let me just say upfront that there's a lot to like in The Spying Game Part II. I especially like the suggestion that Voldemort is deliberately weakening Harry throughout the graveyard scene and that he forces Harry to duel with a weapon he doesn't fully know how to use. And kudos for resolving this week's debate about the purpose and effect of unicorn blood. Most of my comments go to the suggestion that Voldemort is leaving Harry with the *misimpression* that he "just can't get the staff these days." I think that's a dead accurate statement. The best of the best are now in Azkaban or dead or sucked by Dementors. He's left with the cowardly sycophants, and the number one cowardly sycophant in the graveyard is Lucius Malfoy. Think about it. These are the supporters that sleazed their way out of Azkaban by claiming Imperius. They're the ones who were out torturing Muggles at the QWC (Bill implies this in GoF, ch. 9.) People known to be weak-willed are probably more likely to be able to put on a convincing Imperius defense (unless, like Lucius Malfoy, they have a lot of money to back up their claims). Voldemort, of course, knows all too well what they are. So he makes a great show of how easy it is for him to get all of them to do his will, with Pettigrew as Exhibit A. I think what he's saying is "Look here, Harry Potter, my followers may be scum, but they will cut off their right arms for me. This is what you're up against." No, I think his objective is to convince Harry that he, Voldemort, has all the means at his disposal to win. If Harry survives the graveyard, he is to go back discouraged and despondent. And so he does. Plan B accomplished. ***If all the Death Eaters are disloyal, why do only two get punished? *** There is another clue that Harry is being fed misinformation here. Who gets punished during the speech? Pettigrew/Wormtail, who we *know* spent 12 years hiding as a rat rather than run back to Voldemort. [snip] Who else? Avery. [snip] Err... that's it, really. Still, I suppose torturing people can get a bit boring. :-) Well, yes, it would get a bit boring. Besides, Avery so kindly offered to serve as the example, to remind them of what the weak deserve. Voldemort was able to use Avery to make half his point. And Pettigrew makes the other point. Only Harry saw the dismemberment and the head slam. The others see that even faithless servants who are willing to sacrifice like Pettigrew did, (and they do see the bleeding stump) will get their rewards. It's just what a coward needs to get motivated. The truth is, lying about the Imperius curse isn't truly disloyal. After all, there should be nothing wrong with keeping yourself out of Azkaban as long as your freedom is used wisely. But these guys won't lift a finger if Voldemort isn't breathing down their neck. They're not going to go looking for the defeated Evil Overlord. ***'Why did this band of wizards never come to the aid of their master...?'*** (p. 562) This is also implied in several internal contradictions within the speech. Voldemort, according to his speech, is deeply annoyed at the DE's not coming to find him. "Surely, one of my faithful Death Eaters would try and find me... " ( p.567) but later: "I dared not go where other humans were plentiful, for I knew that the other Aurors were still abroad and searching for me." (p. 567) Whether it would be hard to find Voldemort in Albania is an unanswered question. But we know there are others who at least tried. The Lestranges tried. Barty Crouch tried. The cowards in the graveyard, OTOH, did not. (Not even Avery; I stand by the proposition that Fourth Man was somebody else.) And that's their crime. ***Lucius Malfoy, at least, is loyal*** Malfoy has planted the diary. Malfoy organised the DE march. There's a lot of argument about this, but my argument is that Malfoy did both these things under orders - The Diary as an attack on Hogwarts, the DE march to provide a distraction for the (failed) escape of Barty Crouch. This is why Malfoy gets lenient treatment - he's loyal. Absolutely. Lucius Malfoy never abandons Voldemort's, er, principles. Important things, like Mudblood prejudice that remind him of how much better he is than the common folk. But, like Pettigrew, he's too cowardly to risk anything to prove his loyalty unless the chips are down or he's on the winning side. Yes, he planted the diary. And he may have organized that bit of fun with the Robertses. Both of which did demonstrate loyalty to Voldemort. But they are acts of cowardice, and Voldemort knows it. First, the diary. The simple fact that Lucius had custody of Riddle's diary for twelve years suggests some level of loyalty. Whether Voldemort gave it to him or he rounded up and hid theincriminating paraphernalia after Voldemort's fall, keeping the items under his own floorboards is an undeniable act of loyalty. But look what prompts the planting of the diary - the whole thing happens only because Lucius got scared. If you look at the scene at Mr. Borgin's shop, Lucius tells Borgin that the MOM was conducting more raids at the time and that Lucius felt he could no longer rely on his position to avoid being raided. He is careful to sell to Borgin only generic but suspicious poisons that cannot be traced, but Riddle's diary needed to be disposed of in some other fashion; its connection to Voldemort is too obvious. So Lucius, in conjunction with Diary! Riddle (who IMO has no contact with Vapor! Voldemort), hatched the scheme to send it to Hogwarts to unleash the basilisk. And he tries to lay it off on somebody else, and who better than his enemy Arthur Weasley, whose feud with Lucius evidently goes far back, judging from their behavior when we first see them meet. Sounds pretty cowardly to me. Next, in another act of loyalty, I believe Lucius is in fact the present owner of the Riddle house. GoF, ch. 1 states that "the wealthy man who owns the Riddle house these days neither lived there nor put the house to any other use." Well, Lucius is definitely wealthy enough to hang onto an empty house. And it's clear that the owner bought it from an intermediate owner who bought it after the Riddles died, because GoF ch. 1 states that "the new owners" (who seem to be different from the current owner) left after remarking that "there was a nasty feeling about the place." Lucius might have purchased it at Voldemort's request while he was still in power, but GoF clearly states that the present owner is still paying Frank Bryce to maintain it. If so, he wouldn't dare get rid of it; it's very convenient that the locals consider it a tax dodge, and that nobody in Little Hangleton talks to Frank Bryce. It's perfect - tax shelters are always impenetrable to the man on the street. The fact that Voldemort was very comfortable in using it, even before the QWC, suggests that he was aware that the house was in friendly hands. Now, that bit of DE "fun" at the QWC. Though it's after the episode at the Riddle house, it's before Voldemort contacted Barty Jr. (based on the timeline given by Barty Jr. in his Veritaserum confession). Voldemort would have had no knowledge that Barty Jr. was even there so it would not have made sense to order Malfoy to do it in order to create a distraction that would allow him to escape. Would Voldemort have used it as a sort of announcement, however? Well, maybe. But if he had a grand plan to kidnap Harry, the sight of emboldened DE's at the QWC might have put everyone on alert. No, I think that what happened was one of two things: (i) it had been a long time since Lucius had been hanging out with his old DE friends and the comfort of their numbers at the QWC, combined with some strengthening refreshment, emboldened him to act. Or, (ii) Voldemort did use the fireplace to contact the owner of the Riddle house, and said owner Lucius became encouraged by it all to do something rash on his own. It was rash, but it was also cowardly and sick (for the record, the suggestion of rape here comes through loud and clear to me). I've said before (#37699), that I believe that actions against Muggles, though authorized by Voldemort as revenge against his rejection by his Muggle father, was something Voldemort pretty much left it up to the DE's to organize for themselves because it had no strategic value and gave the little guys the illusion of power. Voldemort may get a sadistic satisfaction from Muggle-torture, but I suspect that even he has contempt for its main practitioners. Voldemort's own comment that Lucius' energies might have been better directed toward finding him support this view. Lucius, being the coward he is, really relishes picking on people who can't fight back. But when he actually saw the Dark Mark, he got really scared and ran. If you were Voldemort, would you really want to rely on losers like this to do something outside your presence? If I were Voldemort, I wouldn't even rely on Lucius to remember his lines. No wonder he has to use Cruciatus and dismemberment to scare the rest of them into submission. No, I don't think Voldemort would tell Lucius his plans. He can rely on Pettigrew only because Pettigrew has no place else to go. Pip again: Lucius isn't too bothered about the serious 'why didn't you find me' accusation - but shuts up immediately Voldemort mentions the much less serious accusation that he made himself scarce on seeing the Dark Mark. Why would he be more worried about the less serious accusation? Well, if it happens to be the only one that's true.. Me: Lucius is more worried about the second accusation because it directly contradicts the long-prepared excuse he is trying to make in response to the first question, "why didn't you look for me?" He's been rehearsing his answer to that one for years. Because he didn't look for him, no matter how "loyal" he was. He says, "Had there been any sign from you, any whisper of your whereabouts, I would have been at your side immediately, nothing could have prevented me -" Whereupon Voldemort interrupts him to point out "lazily" that he ran from the Dark Mark instead of toward the loyal servant who cast it "and Mr Malfoy stopped talking abruptly.'" Yes, Lucius was a disgusting coward, as are too many of Voldemort's followers. They're in the graveyard because they didn't dare not come, but they showed their true colors at the QWC. No wonder Voldemort has to show Harry what they'll do for him when pressed. And finally, on the lessons of military history, Alexander said: I refuse to accept the idea that climax of the story is in Book 7. From my (military history fan) point of view, climax of the series is the Graveyard Scene. Harry demonstrated that Voldemort *already* cannot kill him. Even though Harry was weakened and softened and handled the most inappropriate weapon. With every day passing, situation will only become worse for Voldemort. There is no way of reversing that. *Never* again he will have the chances he had at the graveyard. [snip] In military history there's no example of a country that won a war after losing the decisive battle, no matter how minor (or major) that battle would seem. Japan lost the Battle at Midway. Japanese admirals refused to send remaining battleships to win or die. All battleships that survived at Midway were destroyed in the following years - with no positive result *at all*. I'm not quite sure I agree that the Battle of the Graveyard is the Midway of Harry Potter. For one thing, the light and dark sides have been in a long interregnum, and are not actively at war (aside from some skirmishes such as theQuidemort episode). Instead, I would analogize the Graveyard to Pearl Harbor -- a meticulously planned sneak attack right into Hogwarts. While the seeds of ultimate defeat have already been sown via Harry's escape, Voldemort certainly would not view it as a defeat, as Midway was humiliating to the Japanese fleet, who had every advantage going in. Voldemort's achieved his greatest objective, which was to regain his body and his power with the aid of Harry Potter. Similarly, the Japanese were able to destroy or disable the battleships anchored at Pearl, and certainly deemed the attack a success. However, in both cases the attacker's objectives were not fully realized. At Pearl Harbor, the aircraft carriers (which would prove to be the decisive weapons at Midway, not the battleships that were destroyed) were out to sea and escaped damage entirely. Likewise, Voldemort failed to kill Harry and Harry, not Dumbledore, will of course prove to be Voldemort's greatest enemy (though I'm not convinced it's been established that Voldemort cannot kill Harry). He'll never have the advantages he had in GoF; for one thing, he'll never have the same advantage of surprise. OoP will be very dark indeed, because right now the Light side is feeling very vulnerable That's a lot like the US after Pearl Harbor; its defenses were in disarray and it desperately needed to boost morale. Likewise, the Old Crowd doesn't have the support of the Ministry, it's desperately sending out feelers to potential allies, and the tone of the last chapter of GoF very much reflects this mood. There's going to be a Midway. It may not look like the climax, but it will be. But it's not going to look like the Graveyard, because everyone knows what they're up against now. And there will be a final climax in book 7, but it won't look anything like the Graveyard either, just as Hiroshima didn't resemble Pearl Harbor. Debbie, who looked up "schnook" in the dictionary and found that it means the same as "schmuck" which fits Lucius much better than our Competent! Snape [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kierjcs at hotmail.com Fri Jun 21 06:04:10 2002 From: kierjcs at hotmail.com (massiveroadtrauma) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 06:04:10 -0000 Subject: Arnold Weasley and the Imperius Curse. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40143 My apologies if this has been discussed before. I was re-reading Goblet of Fire last night, and came across a chunk of text that jumped out of me (although maybe after reading this board for too long, I'm *looking* for subtext). I don't have the book with me at the moment, so I can't quote the text exactly or give page numbers (although my memory is saying page 188...) but it was the scene where Moody was teaching the fourth years about the Unforgivable Curses, and asks if anyone in the class knows what they are. Ron sticks his hand up and says that his father told him about the Imperius curse. Moody replied with something along the lines of "Yes, I imagine Arnold Weasley would know that one." Hmmm...? MRT. From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Jun 21 06:22:44 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 01:22:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's blood/Lily Potter References: <6917205.1024593940328.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> Message-ID: <000601c218ec$1095dac0$599dcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 40144 From: rvotaw at i-55.com Felicia writes: > Somebody please point out the hesitation bit to me. I thought he just > killed her then tried to kill Harry. > Unforvibably short post but maybe I have read the book wrong ( or the wrong > edition) I only have book one with me right now (Scholastic paperback edition) and at the end when Voldemort is trying to get Harry to give him the stone he says "I killed your father first, he put up a courageous fight . . . but your mother needn't have died. . . she was trying to protect you." I believe there's something more in Book 3, but I don't have it with me right now. I'll check on it tomorrow. Richelle Okay, here it is from book three, two separate places I found just flipping through. First is when the dementor came to the Quidditch match and Harry had the flash backs/ memories surface. This is from the Scholastic paperback edition, chapter nine. "Someone was screaming, screaming inside his head . . . a woman . . . "Not Harry, not Harry, please not Harry!" "Stand aside, you silly girl . . . stand aside, now . . ." "Not Harry, please no, take me, kill me instead--" Then again from Book three, chapter 12, during Harry's lessons from Lupin: "Harry was falling again through thick white fog, and his mother's voice was louder than ever, echoing inside his head--"Not Harry! Not Harry! Please--I'll do anything--" "Stand aside. Stand aside, girl!" So there is a clear hesitation there on Voldemort's part, giving Lily the opportunity to save herself rather than just killing her immediately. And then there's that plea from Lily "I'll do anything." Hmmmm. Richelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From GerRoJen at aol.com Fri Jun 21 08:25:36 2002 From: GerRoJen at aol.com (GerRoJen at aol.com) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 04:25:36 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Arnold Weasley and the Imperius Curse. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40145 Arthur Weasley, dear. Arthur. Arthur loves muggles. He probably often fought to protect them. He may have had the Imperius Curse cast against him because he is a known "muggle-lover". I bet he can repel it quite easily. *grin* Cyra [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From crana at ntlworld.com Fri Jun 21 08:05:55 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 09:05:55 +0100 Subject: Apparating/Driving - Sinistra - Snape - Sexual Voldemort? References: Message-ID: <004b01c218fa$787947e0$513568d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40146 Ginny said: "To put it concretely, maybe learning to Apparate at 17 is like getting a learner's driver's license at 15, putting wizards and witches two years behind Muggles in maturity" I think your point here was really interesting, but it's worth bearing in mind that in the UK you can only drive at 17 (and they may raise it to 18...) JKR would more likely have based her ages for apparating on that? However this does not contradict your slow puberty/long life point:) just that it probably isn't a good basis for working out the actual age difference. Bear in mind with Percy that if they don't have universities, it's natural for him to get a job straight from school - is this what Fleur is going to do, do you think? (get a job at Hogwarts as soon as she leaves Beauxbatons. I have to say, the Hogwarts kids need a French teacher, it's appalling how good the foreign students' English is when the Hogwarts students don't speak any other languages) -------------- Alina said "I don't think this has been mentioned before, but I just discovered that sinistrophobia means the fear of left-handedness or objects on the left side of the body. Could prof. Sinistra's name be related to the word "left" somehow? Left of the political spectrum, maybe?" "Sinistra" is Latin for "left" or "left hand", so it's very possible :) ------------- Does anyone have any ideas about what Snape is being sent off to do at the end of GoF? Liase with vampires? I really can't think of suggestions. ------------- Amandageist said: "So my question to the list is: how many of you really got the sexual undertones that Elkins has pointed up? *As* sexual? Because I did notice the particular word usage, and its effectiveness in creating a creepy atmosphere, in all instances quoted--it just never struck me as sexual." and Dicentra said: "There's no doubt in my mind that Voldemort is getting off on something here. I just don't think the erotic imagery is necessarily pointing to homoeroticism, per se. I think Voldemort, as a predator, is getting off on killing (ever hear the noises a cat makes when a bird flies nearby?). He's probably too dehumanized to care about the sex of his victim. However, Harry is his Ultimate Foe, and getting rid of him means acheiving the power he's been looking for all his life. (This also applies to Riddle's reaction to Harry.) And since power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, it's no wonder he gets all hot and bothered." I have to say, I agree with both of you here. I was listening to PS/SS last night and I noticed that when QuirrelsHead!Voldemort talks to Harry, his eyes look "hungry" there too. Interesting. I do think that the words are used to create a creepy atmosphere, and it is made more creepy by the implications that Voldemort is really getting off on being about to kill Harry. From reading of other Hero-and-Villain-Confrontation scenes, I think this is quite a common device used by authors. Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Erikzamora at hotmail.com Fri Jun 21 09:16:17 2002 From: Erikzamora at hotmail.com (eriktz) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 09:16:17 -0000 Subject: JKR's Scholastic Interview-severus snape=perseus Evans/Hand of Glory/jameQuiddit Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40147 (All JKR quotes are from the Scholastic's Interview http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm ) I have just read this interview for the first time and noticed a few troubling problems and possible plot twists. Dave Hardenbrook said: Snape is born Perseus Evans, half-blood cousin to our "Darling Lily". First I would like to applaud whoever found the name Perseus Evans in Snapes name (I am certainly not clever enough to see that- or not bored enough to try). Forgive me if this is common knowledge, but it says in her interview: Q: Which house was Lily Potter in, and what is her maiden name? JKR: Her maiden name was Evans, and she was in Gryffindor (naturally). This destroys the Snape was in love with Lily so hated James scenerio if Snape is actually a close relative of Lily theory i have seen floating around. Second, The Hand of Glory that Draco likes at Mr Borgin's shop (CoS pg52 US hardcover edition) is not bought for Draco by his father, however JKR says: "...the "Hand of Glory" which Draco gets from Borgin and Burkes in Chamber of Secrets." If it's true JKR never or rarely puts things in the books she doesn't intend on showing up later, then this little fact may come into play at somepoint. This book isn't completely clear if Lucius buys it or not, but it does not plainly say that he got it for sure. Thirdly: What position did James Potter play on the Gryffindor Quidditch team? JKR clearly says in the interview that he was a Chaser, (this may be more for movie topics, but I'm not sure)but the movie clearly says that James was a Seeker like Harry. I JKR same in an interview once (last year, so I have no idea where I heard it, maybe someone else knows) that JKR specifically had something put into the movie about Harry's past that we were not aware of in the book and I had always been convinced it was James' position as seeker, but now that got blown away and I don't know what to make of it. Any ideas? (hope this isn't too movie related...is it is--IGNORE IT!) Well, my second post, hope it goes through ok! Erik From cmtorres67 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 21 10:35:28 2002 From: cmtorres67 at yahoo.com (cmtorres67) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:35:28 -0000 Subject: Sexuality in HP (WAS So, why did Snape turn on Voldermort?) In-Reply-To: <001c01c218c4$e5059480$707663d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40148 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda Geist" wrote: > > The thing that I must say, though, is that none of this, no inkling or > trickle or faintest flicker of this, ever occurred to me in any of my many > re-readings, until I read Elkins' post. Am I the only one who never sees > things like this? Am I the only one who read this with total amazement? > So my question to the list is: how many of you really got the sexual > undertones that Elkins has pointed up? *As* sexual? Because I did notice the > particular word usage, and its effectiveness in creating a creepy > atmosphere, in all instances quoted--it just never struck me as sexual. > The first time I read GoF I was just horrified that 14 y.o Harry was captured by Voldemort and that it looked like he might die a rather horrifying death. I saw Voldemort in that whole sequence as high on his return to a body and full power, and totally sadistic in his treatment of Harry and the DE's. And I thought it was very violent. As someone mentioned, power can be a great turn on and that's how I viewed it. And I just relistened to that scene recently and continue to only see the aspects I described above. I look forward to how Harry is emotionally in OotP (as I'm sure everyone else does!) Celeste From adatole at yahoo.com Fri Jun 21 04:17:04 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (Leon Adato) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 00:17:04 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Pa' los que entiendan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001201c21918$8edb6e50$0464a8c0@dellcpi> No: HPFGUIDX 40149 How about for those of us who speak a little, who might like to improve, and/or who just enjoy foreign languages in general and get very little chances to work on them? IE: translation, even off-line, would be lovely. I can email you privately with the parts I *did* understand, if that makes your life easier (or more amused). Leon Adato -------------- Plus nous nous elevons, plus nous paraissons petits a ceux qui ne savent pas voler. (The higher we are going, the smaller we seem to be for the people who can not fly) -F. Nietsche -----Original Message----- From: dicentra63 [mailto:dicentra at xmission.com] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 5:12 PM To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPforGrownups] Pa' los que entiendan If you don't read Spanish, don't worry about the following. I'm making a correction to an obscure reference that only a Spanish-speaker would get. En el mensaje 40082, yo me equivoque en la traduccion de algo. Dije 'lobo pardo' cuando debia decir 'lobo gris'. Resulta que 'pardo' es un termino ofensivo; por tanto, parece que estoy insultando al referente. La verdad es que ignoraba el sentido feo de la palabra. Le pido perdon al ofendido y publicamente quiero confesar y corregir el error. --Dicentra, la arrepentida ________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 mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 21 12:29:34 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:29:34 -0000 Subject: JKR's Scholastic Interview-severus snape=perseus Evans/Hand of Glory/jameQuiddit In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40150 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "eriktz" wrote: > (All JKR quotes are from the Scholastic's Interview > http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm ) > > I have just read this interview for the first time and noticed a few > troubling problems and possible plot twists. > >> > > Thirdly: What position did James Potter play on the Gryffindor > Quidditch team? JKR clearly says in the interview that he was a > Chaser, (this may be more for movie topics, but I'm not sure)but the > movie clearly says that James was a Seeker like Harry. I JKR same in > an interview once (last year, so I have no idea where I heard it, > maybe someone else knows) that JKR specifically had something put > into the movie about Harry's past that we were not aware of in the > book and I had always been convinced it was James' position as > seeker, but now that got blown away and I don't know what to make of > it. Any ideas? (hope this isn't too movie related...is it is-- IGNORE > IT!) > > Well, my second post, hope it goes through ok! _______ I noticed that as well. My take on the seeker/chaser confusion is that it doesn't make a difference to the plot of the books if James was a seeker/chaser and that is why it was allowed to be changed in the movie. Gretchen From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Fri Jun 21 13:38:34 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 09:38:34 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Arnold Weasley and the Imperius Curse. Message-ID: <8d.19fff971.2a44865a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40151 I'm guessing that 'Arthur' :) wouldv'e encountered alot of problems with the Imperius Curse because he worked for the Ministry during Voldie's Reign. Also, Dumbledore seems to trust him very much, as he shows in GoF when he asks for Molly and Arthur's help, which could mean that Arthur played a larger role the first time around. *Chelsea* From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Fri Jun 21 13:41:25 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 09:41:25 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Apparating/Driving - Sinistra - Snape - Sexual Voldemort? Message-ID: <4d.1fe8d4e9.2a448705@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40152 In a message dated 6/21/2002 4:27:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, crana at ntlworld.com writes: << Does anyone have any ideas about what Snape is being sent off to do at the end of GoF? Liase with vampires? I really can't think of suggestions. >> I believe that Snape has gone undercover for Dumbledore again. D tells him he knows what he must do, and Snape visibly pales but looks determined. It seems right, because we already know that Snape was a spy once, and with V back, he should do it again. Also, we know from dialogue that V will kill traitors, so for Snape's sake, D is probably sending him back to make it look like he was still loyal. *Chelsea* From bard7696 at aol.com Fri Jun 21 12:54:49 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:54:49 -0000 Subject: Sexuality in HP (WAS So, why did Snape turn on Voldermort?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40153 Amanda Geist wrote: > > The thing that I must say, though, is that none of this, no inkling > or > > trickle or faintest flicker of this, ever occurred to me in any of > my many > > re-readings, until I read Elkins' post. Am I the only one who never > sees > > things like this? Am I the only one who read this with total > amazement? > > > > So my question to the list is: how many of you really got the sexual > > undertones that Elkins has pointed up? *As* sexual? Because I did > notice the > > particular word usage, and its effectiveness in creating a creepy > > atmosphere, in all instances quoted--it just never struck me as > sexual. > > > Celeste wrote: > The first time I read GoF I was just horrified that 14 y.o Harry was > captured by Voldemort and that it looked like he might die a rather > horrifying death. I saw Voldemort in that whole sequence as high on > his return to a body and full power, and totally sadistic in his > treatment of Harry and the DE's. And I thought it was very violent. > As someone mentioned, power can be a great turn on and that's how I > viewed it. And I just relistened to that scene recently and continue > to only see the aspects I described above. > > I look forward to how Harry is emotionally in OotP (as I'm sure > everyone else does!) > I write: What this argument proves to me is that sexual references can be found in just about anything if one looks hard enough. The entire notion of Voldemort looking hungrily at Harry does not seem to me to be sexual, but carnivorous. Voldemort is evil incarnate, and he wants to "devour" the good around him. Perhaps when Voldermort went to kill James and Harry -- canon has established that Lily was killed because she got in the way and was not a target, although V-mort might killed her after offing the menfolk just to be neat and tidy -- it was business. The Potters were a threat. But now it's personal. Harry represents the worst defeat in V-Mort's history, and Da V-man wants revenge. But let us for a moment play along with the idea that Voldemort's hungry eyes indicate a sexual pleasure in killing Harry. Let us further play along and say that Voldemort has lusts for Harry, as the "hungry eyes" would indicate. Some of the early Ian Fleming James Bond novels did something similar with the villains. They were slightly effeminate, perhaps a bit ambiguous sexually, and always, always evil. And when were they written again? The 1950s, hardly the most enlightened time in the world. If this be homoerotica, it certainly does not paint a good picture of homosexuals. Evil, twisted, perverted, predatory pedophiliacs, all notions of homosexuality that are supposed to be way in the rearview mirror of the culture. Adding homoerotic tendencies to Voldemort merely adds to those stereotypes. 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. 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. Ginny walking in on Percy while he was kissing Penelope. Of course, the subtle little joke is that Percy was... um, testing his wand. BUT... let's follow the scene through. Percy swore Ginny to secrecy over kissing his girlfriend? How much more innocent, 1950s bland chastity do you want? Obviously, one can find sexual, heterosexual or homosexual, references to all forms of pop culture. I'll make a point of digging through my old Encyclopedia Brown books to look for things. 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. How much different is it to find homoerotic references in Harry Potter than it is the Teletubbies? The only difference it seems to me is that one quest for references is being made in the name of advocacy and the other is being made in the name of opposition. They both strike me as a waste of time. Darrin - -- Was in love with Encyclopedia's partner Sally... From fakeplastikcheese at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jun 21 13:25:41 2002 From: fakeplastikcheese at yahoo.co.uk (fakeplastikcheese) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:25:41 -0000 Subject: Flower names In-Reply-To: <00cf01c2183a$217b6560$43b068d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40154 Random monkey said: > Ooh - I've just noticed something: Lily and Petunia, both flowers.. ok, that's not very significant. I've noticed that too... and more to the point, there seem to be loads of flower names in HP. As well as Lily and Petunia, we have Lavender (Brown), Poppy (Pomfrey), Fleur (Delacour), Pansy (Parkinson), (Padma (Patil - I read somewhere that Padma is Hindi [I think] for Lotus), Narcissa (Malfoy)... I don't know if the number of plant-related names is significant, but it seems possible there's some symbolism there. After all, lilies are supposed to represent (and correct me if I'm wrong here) beauty and death amongst other things. I have no idea what petunias represent, but they're a bit plain and ordinary aren't they? Anyway, hope this is vaguely helpful, Buttercup PS - Professor Sprout? :) From fakeplastikcheese at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jun 21 13:50:07 2002 From: fakeplastikcheese at yahoo.co.uk (fakeplastikcheese) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 13:50:07 -0000 Subject: Sexuality in HP/Freud In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40155 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra63" wrote: > Freudians would say that wand = phallus = potency. But it's true in > GoF only if JKR buys into Freud. > > Because maybe a cigar, in this case, is just a cigar. ...and Buttercup says: 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). 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. Like I say, maybe I'm reading *far* too deeply into all this..... Buttercup (who is meant to be revising for a psychology exam on Monday. Does this count?) From crana at ntlworld.com Fri Jun 21 14:22:43 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 15:22:43 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Flower names References: Message-ID: <001e01c2192f$1c1cc500$b23068d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40156 Buttercup wrote: "Random monkey said: > Ooh - I've just noticed something: Lily and Petunia, both flowers.. ok, that's not very significant." Oi! I'm not random monkey! I'm Rosie :) and also: "I've noticed that too... and more to the point, there seem to be loads of flower names in HP. As well as Lily and Petunia, we have Lavender (Brown), Poppy (Pomfrey), Fleur (Delacour), Pansy (Parkinson), (Padma (Patil - I read somewhere that Padma is Hindi [I think] for Lotus), Narcissa (Malfoy)... I don't know if the number of plant-related names is significant, but it seems possible there's some symbolism there. After all, lilies are supposed to represent (and correct me if I'm wrong here) beauty and death amongst other things. I have no idea what petunias represent, but they're a bit plain and ordinary aren't they?" After posting that about the flowers I was on "What's In A Name" (http://www.theninemuses.net/hp/d.html), which says: "The petunia symbolizes anger and resentment. Compare with the lily, which symbolizes purity and innocence." - interesting. And it sounds like "petty" too. Which the Dursleys definitely are! And yep, they are ordinary too: very suburban and boring, really! Just like her. I'm not sure about all the other flower names (why they are what they are) although I agree there are a lot! For some of them it might not be an association with the flower though, e.g. Lavender Brown (both names are colours), Narcissa Malfoy (a reference to her being narcissistic?), Fleur Delacour (which apparently, broken down into Fleur de la Cour - flower of the court - means noblewoman in French). "Flower" seems to be quite a good choice for Fleur, really - she's very decorative and head-turning, but in the Tournament she wasn't amazing. Poppy Pomfrey is, I think, reference to the medicinal uses of poppies for opium as a painkiller in the past. I can't find anything on Pansy Parkinson (apparently pansies symbolise thoughts, but I don't think that's too applicable in her case!) Padma is also the name of a Hindu goddess, and her sister goddess is Parvatti, very good choices for twins of (I think) Indian descent. Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri Jun 21 15:09:32 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 11:09:32 -0400 Subject: Voldemort's Mission Implausible Message-ID: <163F708C.0EF81D86.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40157 To me, one of the fundamental plot (as opposed to thematic or characterisation) weaknesses of the Spying Game theory (Message 40044) is the long time before Voldemort is rescued. There are a number of possibilities involving the notion of loyal DEs (in all that follows I assume that some DEs at least are loyal, but I don't assume that Voldemort can be sure of it): (a) Voldemort really is unable to contact the DEs and they are unable to find him. In that case we have to explain how Pettigrew could succeed where others had failed. (b) Voldemort is unable to contact the DEs but they could find and contact him fairly readily. In this case, if in fact loyal, why did they not do so? Scenario 1: Voldemort did not wish to be found, so although they tried, he hid and they failed. In this case, why? The most likely explanation seems to be that he did not, in fact, trust them in his weakened state. He is only prepared to trust Pettigrew because of his unique situation as one requiring protection from both sides in the war. The best we can make of this is that Malfoy and others *are* loyal, but Voldemort believes that they are not, or at least dare not risk it. If so, he has been pleasantly surprised by the graveyard scene (but, of course, does not show it). It really means that the hardest part of the potion was the flesh of the servant: any other servant than Pettigrew might, in Voldemort's planning estimation, walk away once the baby was dumped in the potion. The only alternative was Crouch, who was needed to send Harry (could Voldemort have instead arranged for Crouch to *fetch* Harry?). The main weakness of this scenario is that Voldemort is incredibly lucky (from his POV: I don't think it matters to this argument whether this is the result of Dumbledorean manipulation) that a Pettigrew is available. He is out of contact by assumption (a): he doesn't even know Pettigrew is *alive*. Scenario 2: The DEs did contact Voldemort but he did not make use of them. This stretches belief. If he trusted them enough to meet them when they turned up in Albania, in his weakened state, would he not have gone ahead with re-embodiment much earlier, say, when Harry was four years old? The hue and cry for DEs would have died down: V could come back to England and start to rebuild his power base. He still has the obstacle of the Dursleys if he is to insist on using Harry, so he may have to wait until he starts Hogwarts, but he would be in a position to manipulate his placemen into Hogwarts in advance at least. And, if there are other ways to re-embody, or get to an acceptable immortality, he has more freedom with DE support to try them out. Onward. (c) Voldemort is able to contact the DEs but they have trouble locating him. If he refuses to try, this is another version of Scenario 1 above. The DEs are in fact trying, but he keeps out of their way. If he contacts them and tells them how to find him, then this moves us into... (d) Voldemort and the DEs can contact each other, and do so. This may seem to be a version of 2 above but there is another possibility: that he can do remote contact, while concealing his precise location from presumed untrustworthy DEs. One can envisage the following sort of conversation: Voldemort (in Albania, breathing noisily): Good evening, Lucius. The emperor has swept away the last vestiges of the old republic - oops, wrong script... (squeaks as he adjusts set)... SurPRISE! Lucius Malfoy (at Malfoy Manor): My Lord! How delightful! And may I compliment you on your very fetching and ever-so-slightly suggestive snake? V: Lucius, I want you to dig out my old school diary and hang around Flourish and Blotts until you can palm it on one of the Weasley children. Then await further orders. LM: My Lord, where are you? Only tell me and I can apparate to your side in an instant. I can organise accommodation at Little Hangleton. I can provide every wizarding luxury. V: Not so fast, my slippery friend! I have no doubt you would be only too happy to have me in your grasp in my weakened state. No, if you are as loyal as you say, then obey my orders. The diary, darling! ...and so on. This looks a bit more likely, but ultimately one is still left wondering what, absent Pettigrew, Voldemort's plan precisely *was*. The DEs all imagine that Pettigrew is a traitor (and if Voldemort suspects different, and disabuses the DEs of it, he then runs the risk that Pettigrew loses all motivation to assist Voldemort since he no longer need fear the DEs) and have no idea where he is, if they don't just assume he is dead. So, SPYGAME theorists: You are a disembodied Evil Overlord, stuck in a backward part of Europe. Your rather odd servant Wormtail is missing, presumed dead. Your enemies the aurors have gone back to Alert State Black and are no longer surveilling your servants. You know which, if any, of your servants you can trust, and how far. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to come up with a master plan which will bring you back to full power - and this is the important bit - and to take *fourteen years or more* to do it. Please swallow this message before reading it. Bwhahahaha! David, who has affectionate memories of Albania and reckons a dose of the coffee would have solidified Voldemort much easier than all this airy-fairy potions nonsense __________________________________________________________________ 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 hp_lexicon at yahoo.com Fri Jun 21 15:17:05 2002 From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 15:17:05 -0000 Subject: thoughts about the forbidden forest In-Reply-To: <21.1fc42581.2a4410a2@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40158 > But more than that, I have an alternate suggestion. PoA states that Lupin > gallops into the forest. According to the Lexicon map of the Hogwarts > grounds, the Forbidden Forest is away from the entrance, which makes sense > since there's no reason why there would be any entrances to Hogwarts in the > forest. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the forest is not just in one place, but in fact occupies a huge area which partially surrounds the castle. We know that a part of the forest is west of the castle entrance, since we see the sun setting over it in PA. We also know that the forest is large enough to conceal four huge, fire-breathing dragons from the castle, which happens in GF. On top of that, we are told that Fluffy was released into the forest after the events of PS/SS, and one can only imagine how much space a creature like that needs to roam in. The forest must consist of hundreds, probably thousands of acres of wild land, with a variety of terrain and vegetation. One wonders if the hippogriffs were captured there as well. Another thing to consider is that the forest might have a magical aspect to its geography. The Wizarding World's ideas of geography are very different from those of the Muggle world, since spells operate by a totally different form of logic. The Knight Bus, for example, apparently makes its stops in alphabetical order, not in an order dictated by the physical proximity between places. Transfiguration often seems to work best when the items involved are similar in spelling, regardless of the physical characteristics of the objects. Wizarding geometry is also rather fluid, since things like cauldrons or tents or cars can hold more on the inside than their outer dimensions would indicate. So might the forest not in fact be a lot larger on the inside than the outside, and might some of that additional space be actually located somewhere else entirely if we'd map it in our Muggle way? If the forest has connections to other forests or wild places, it might explain why, when Barty Crouch Sr. managed to get to Hogwarts, the place he appeared was the forest. If so, one wonders which forest elsewhere in Britain he entered to start his journey. The forest certainly is an amazing, mysterious place. I wonder if even Hagrid knows all its secrets... Steve Vander Ark The Harry Potter Lexicon From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Fri Jun 21 16:00:40 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 16:00:40 -0000 Subject: Hagrid, Dumbledore, & Second Chances (WAS Hagrid the Betrayer) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40159 Cindy wrote: <<>> Me: Oh, yes! Cindy, is there a club? Are there rules and watercraft and slushy drinks? Because I want to join. You summed up my problems with Hagrid in one wonderful sentence: << I'm asked to believe that Dumbledore thinks Hagrid's weaknesses are to be tolerated.>> Yes. You see, this actually sums up my problems with Dumbledore as well. Second chances are all very good, imho, but when you give them, don't you expect some repentance in return? Shouldn't the forgiven one make a good faith effort to turn away from whatever he (and so far it's always a he in the Potterverse) did to screw things up so royally in the first place? Hagrid doesn't seem to have repented. His fascination for "interestin' creatures" still causes danger for students, just like it did, oh, 50 years ago. And what does Dumbledore do about this? Why, give him more responsibility. Make him a *teacher*, for goodness' sakes, at what Hermione tells us is the best school around. Make him a protector of the extremely important Harry Potter. Cindy again: <<< It's just a stretch. A poor fit between character and function. A wobbly idea from start to finish, IMHO.>>>> That's what I worry about. What is she *doing* with Hagrid? What message is JKR trying to send about second chances? That they should be handed about like candy? I hope not. And I guess that's why I'm sort of pulling for a Hagrid screw-up down the pipe. So far, Dumbledore's track record with the second chances just doesn't seem to be working out in the good guy's favor. There's Hagrid, of course. Then we've got Lupin, in denial about his werewolfish-ness, causing danger to students as a teenager and as an adult. ::Pats Lupin on head. Yes, I still love you. At least you had the sense to wake up and abdicate responsibility:: And, for all you GOLDSIEVE members out there, we've got Snape (Great Overlord Lies Dormant. Snape Is Evil. Very Evil.) *g* It remains to be seen what Sirius will make of his second chance. Will his animosity towards Snape cause major problems, just as it did in their youth? (Not trying to instigate any Prank discussions here, I promise!) Caroline, who worries about Dumbledore sometimes From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Jun 21 16:12:27 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 11:12:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's Scholastic Interview-severus snape=perseus Evans/Hand of Glory/jameQuiddit References: Message-ID: <002e01c2193e$70e4ba20$969dcdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 40160 > From: eriktz > Q: Which house was Lily Potter in, and what is her maiden name? > JKR: Her maiden name was Evans, and she was in Gryffindor > (naturally). > > This destroys the Snape was in love with Lily so hated James > scenerio if Snape is actually a close relative of Lily theory i have > seen floating around. I for one am still holding out for the theory that Lily was originally in Slytherin and resorted through some way that we haven't yet encountered. Okay, I'm stretching it, but that's my business, right? > Thirdly: What position did James Potter play on the Gryffindor > Quidditch team? JKR clearly says in the interview that he was a > Chaser, (this may be more for movie topics, but I'm not sure)but the > movie clearly says that James was a Seeker like Harry. I JKR same in > an interview once (last year, so I have no idea where I heard it, > maybe someone else knows) that JKR specifically had something put > into the movie about Harry's past that we were not aware of in the > book and I had always been convinced it was James' position as > seeker, but now that got blown away and I don't know what to make of > it. Any ideas? (hope this isn't too movie related...is it is--IGNORE > IT!) Well, it could be possible that James played more than one position. Suppose he started as a chaser, because that was the only open position on the team. Then if the seeker completed his/her seventh year, the seeker position then opened up, maybe he moved over to that. Or vice versa. Richelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Fri Jun 21 16:50:37 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 17:50:37 +0100 Subject: Uncle Perseus References: Message-ID: <005d01c21943$c50f1b40$429f5651@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 40161 the Scholastic's Interview > http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm ) > >> This destroys the Snape was in love with Lily so hated James > scenerio if Snape is actually a close relative of Lily theory i have > seen floating around. Oh lovely, lovely, lovely, how about * Uncle Severus * and his * Nephew * Harry? * G * > > Second, The Hand of Glory that Draco likes at Mr Borgin's shop (CoS > pg52 US hardcover edition) is not bought for Draco by his father, ............. > SNIP..........., then this little fact may come into play at somepoint. This > book isn't completely clear if Lucius buys it or not, but it does > not plainly say that he got it for sure. I think he warns Draco away from it as he Lucius is there to sell stuff not to buy * at the time *. But, as you say JKR never puts things in without good reason I just can't see what was so special about the hand of glory anyway (at the moment that is.....) Felicia From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri Jun 21 17:41:41 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 17:41:41 -0000 Subject: Killing Harry, Smart!Voldemort (WAS Spying Game II ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40162 Having missed out *completely* on MAGICDISHWASHER, I have decided to offer my own thoughts on SpyGame II before it is too late. Even if I have nothing to say worth saying. ;-) ************ Pip: > ***Harry can be killed*** > > Harry has very powerful, instinctive defences. These cannot save him > in all situations - falling unconscious off his broom is dangerous > (PoA). This is interesting. Is there any *real* evidence that Harry can be killed? Yes, Harry falls off of his broom in PoA. One of his teammates says, "I thought he was dead for sure." But if Harry really can't die (or, at least, die in this fashion), then the students at Hogwarts wouldn't have any idea about that. So I don't think Harry's Quiddich plunge tells us anything about Harry's capacity to be killed. Along those lines, the fact that Snape and Dumbledore both try to protect Harry from a fall isn't dispositive either. Falling from that height would likely *hurt*. I would think these adults would intervene to prevent a student from suffering injury. Now, Quirreldemort seems to think there is some benefit to knocking Harry off of his broom. But I figure either Quirrel was doing the thinking there, or Voldemort figured it was worth a shot and couldn't hurt. Or . . . or . . . causing Harry to fall from his broom in PS/SS may have been the first step toward -- you guessed it -- *weakening* Harry. Pip: > When Harry is *not* the [official] audience: > "I have my reasons for using the boy, as I have already explained to > you, and I will use no other." (Voldemort p. 14. ) > This doesn't entirely sound like he fully expects to end up killing > Harry. He wants to 'use' him. In fact, Wormtail and Voldemort get > through the entire conversation in Chapter One without once > connecting the word 'kill' with 'Harry Potter'. And it's not that > they prefer euphemisms either - both Wormtail and Voldemort > use 'kill' - Wormtail when asking if he's to be killed and Voldemort > when talking about his killing Bertha Jorkins. (p.16) I think we might need to tweak this a bit. Voldemort and Wormtail may not have directly discussed killing Harry, but *Frank Bryce* sure got the message: "And he was planning more murders -- this boy, Harry Potter, whoever he was -- was in danger -- " No, I think the original plan was always to use Harry and kill him. Pip: >Plan A > includes a lot of 'softening the kid up first'. Plan A includes > weakening Harry - crucio, tying him to the gravestone in a long and > horrifying ordeal. Plan A is the plan of someone who knows that Harry > is very strong indeed. Yes, I agree with this and am quite persuaded by it. And the best part is that Plan A gives us Smart!Voldemort, and, uh, there aren't a whole lot of other theories that lead us anywhere *close* to Smart!Voldemort. ;-) Pip: > At no point in this duel does Voldemort launch a stupid, reckless > attack. He takes great care to ensure that Harry is already >weakened > and exhausted before the duel starts, that he has to use a weapon > that he's only half-trained in, that he is hit with 'softening up' > spells first, that he is taunted into playing the duel Voldemort's > way, and that when he is finally hit with an Avada Kedavra, Harry is > concentrating on launching another spell, not on defending >himself. Oh, goodness! Another argument for Smart!Voldemort! Yes, yes yes! Pip: > ***The Portkey is two-way to allow Harry a line of retreat. *** > > It has been suggested that Voldemort is going to use the two-way > Portkey to launch an attack directly into Hogwarts, using the element > of surprise. > This suggests that the Portkey can have only one use - if its > deliberately two way nature is NOT aimed at Death Eaters, it can only > be aimed at Harry. Voldemort has given Harry a line of retreat. Uh oh. I was really rolling there with Pip, particularly as she was making *so* much headway with Smart!Voldemort. But then we do an about- face and go straight back to DumbAsAFencepost!Voldemort. Plan B is that Voldemort is going to *let* Harry escape so that Harry can go get *stronger*? So that he can learn how to use his wand, learn how to cast Dark Curses, learn to defend himself, and generally grow into a Superhero? So that Harry will be really ready and experienced and cool as a cucumber when it is time for their next confrontation? Whoa! Doesn't the Evil Overlord Handbook say anything about *that*? Eh, well, maybe it's in the footnotes. ;-) I think that the only way Harry was getting out of that graveyard was over Voldemort's dead body. Voldemort didn't *want* there to be three more books. Oh, no. He was ending it right there, and he didn't need or want a Plan B. Well, OK, maybe there was a Plan B. But it was going to be really *messy.* Plan B was for Voldemort and the DEs to chase Harry (come on, you know 30 grown men ? all of whom can apparate -- can run down an injured 14 year old boy, right?). When they caught him, they were going to . . . well, you know how we've speculated about the ways Harry was going to kill Sirius without AK? Yeah. Voldemort was going to get *medieval* on Harry. Lots of ropes twisted around necks. Lots of Harry being dropped onto his head again and again. Lots of Harry being buried alive. Had enough? ;-) Nah, I'm sticking with my prior view of why the Cup is round-trip. Crouch Jr. blew it. The Cup was always set to be a round-trip from the center of the maze. Otherwise, the winner would have to grab the Cup and battle his or her way past these life-threatening obstacles back to the entrance of the maze to claim the thousand galleons, which doesn't make sense. Crouch Jr., being talented but rather new to the art of programming Portkeys, didn't know about this round trip feature, or more likely, didn't care. 'Cause Crouch Jr. had every reason to think that the only thing that might be returning via the Cup was Harry's corpse. Of course, I also like the idea that the smoke people turned the Cup into a portkey. "You must get to the Portkey, it will return you to Hogwarts." So how did James know *that*? I'm thinking that James and Lily protected their little boy by distracting Voldemort and enchanting the Cup. Pip: > ***Harry turns out to have unrealised powers.*** > > Harry has an amazing ability to dodge spells. > > In the duel: > > [Harry ]" rolled behind the marble headstone of Voldemort's father, > and he heard it crack as the curse missed him. " ( p. 574 - a > Cruciatus spell ) > [Harry] " dived behind a marble angel to avoid the jets of red light > and saw the tip of its wing shatter as the spells hit it" ( p.580 - a > large number of Stupefy spells.) > [Harry] " dived as he heard more wand blasts behind him; more jets of > light flew over his head as he fell.." ( p. 580 - more stunning > spells.) Yes, this is disturbing. And the graveyard isn't the only time a spell misses Harry. When Draco tries to curse Harry in GoF, "Harry felt something white-hot graze the side of his face." And in case there is any doubt that Malfoy shouldn't have missed Harry there, Moody behaves as though Malfoy shouldn't have missed: "'Did he get you?' Moody growled." Yeah, something is *up* with Harry's ability to dodge spells. Pip: > There's another implication that suggests Harry's defences might not > be a full time 'shield' - he can get hit. Mostly when he doesn't > think to dodge. Ah, but as I said above, Harry can be missed even when he doesn't think to dodge. That suggests that his natural shield operates even when he doesn't know someone is firing at him. Pip: > At the end of the fight, Voldemort is not in a bad position with his > Death Eaters. Harry escaped, true, but Voldemort has shown that Harry > can be captured, injured, fought to a draw. Defeating Harry is going > to be tough - but it *is* possible. Voldemort isn't in a bad position with the DEs because the duel was a *draw*? Well . . . Voldemort had better hire a darn good spin doctor if he hopes to convince anyone of *that.* Voldemort *lost* in the graveyard. No doubt about it. Oh yeah. Oh, he got his body back. But the only lasting injury to Harry is a small cut on his arm. And it was hardly a draw, because Harry broke the connection while Voldemort was fighting his way through *smoke people.* Nah, Voldemort got totally *spanked* in the graveyard. Sheez, I cannot even imagine Voldemort's next line of dialogue after Harry was transported from the graveyard. Somehow, I suspect that *someone* received a good long Cruciatus Curse for allowing that to happen, and I'd bet that it was Wormtail. Wormtail, who neglected to impress on young Crouch Jr. the importance of disabling the round- trip Cup feature by, uh, cutting the *red* wire. ;-) And Avery. Because torturing Avery is just so *convenient.* Cindy From dicentra at xmission.com Fri Jun 21 18:02:08 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 18:02:08 -0000 Subject: TBAY: HP and the Superfluous Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40163 Dicentra, heartened by her talk with Cindy, and eager to take charge of a flotation device of her very own, backstrokes her way across Theory Bay from the Big Bang destroyer to her shiny new barge. But as she clambers on board, she sees two shadowy figures over by her first precious can(n)on. They're trying to toss it overboard! Dicentra rushes forward to stop these dastardly fiends in their dastardly deed. Pippin and Debbie! Dicentra isn't surprised by this. She knew Pippin wouldn't take it lightly that Dicentra had discovered a superfluous scene so soon after Pippin's "nothing is there by mistake" speech. Huh. Funny how she has to go recruit Debbie to help her. "Can't do it yourself, eh?" Dicentra mutters between clenched teeth. Pippin and Debbie look up at Dicentra's approach. "Unhand that can(n)on, foul knaves!" shouts Dicentra. "That can(n)on is mine by right. I have won it by the power of mine own sword in goodly battle." "I doubt that," says Pippin, eyeing Dicentra carefully and backing away slowly. "You've not found a superfluous scene but an extremely *subtle* scene. Look, it's Crookshanks' first Sirius-directed effort to nab Pettigrew. We don't know that on first reading, though Rowling helpfully offers us a hint: 'mangy cur!'" Dicentra pulls her waterproof copy of PoA out of her robes and turns to page 364 of the Scholastic Edition. "I don't think you can assert *when* Sirius and Crookshanks began to collaborate. Look at this: "This cat isn't mad," said Black hoarsely.... "He's the most intelligent of his kind I've ever met. He recognized Peter for what he was right away. And when he met me, he knew I was no dog. It was awhile before he trusted me.... Finally, I managed to communicate to him what I was after, and he's been helping me.... He tried to bring Peter to me, but couldn't ... so he stole the passwords into Gryffindor Tower for me... "See? There is no timeframe given as to when they began to work together. Sirius doesn't say that he first tried to get in, then he got the cat to help him. You can assume that if you want, but the text doesn't support it. Frankly, the timing in this is all screwed up anyway: Sirius goes after Scabbers for the second time *after* Scabbers fakes his own death. Sirius knew it was a faked death, so why go looking in Ron's bed for him? This smells suspiciously like a FLINT to me. But this barge don't collect FLINTS, it collects... um... superfluity." "Oh yeah," says Pippin. "So how about this? It also establishes that Peeves has access to password-protected Gryffindor tower. The ghosts and such don't usually invade the students' bedrooms. We get the impression from Myrtle that they're not really supposed to." "Hey, I saw the Grey Lady walk *right through* the Gryffindor common room, just today. And I mean *through*," countered Dicentra. "She's talking about the Trailer," says Debbie in a loud stage whisper. "Even so," continues Dicentra, "since when did Peeves stay in-bounds? That he goes where he's not supposed to is hardly front-page news. And besides, the password protects the opening behind the painting. Ghosts and poltergeists aren't going to be stopped by the Fat Lady." Pippin puts her foot on the can(n)on and gives it a shove. "Did Peeves break the rules at Crookshanks' instigation to distract Harry and get him to open the door? We know he was willing to break a cabinet for NHN. It could be significant some time in the future that Poltergeists can get into otherwise inaccessible places." "If Crookshanks asked Peeves to wake Harry, that fact should have come out in the Shrieking Shack, the scene when All Is Revealed," counters Dicentra. "Sirius would have known, and he would have mentioned it, to prove his story is true. As for establishing that a poltergeist can get into inaccessible places, that was established before JKR went to the cafe that first time. It's hardly necessary here." "OK," says Pippin, her foot still firmly on the back of the can(n)on. Forget about the cat and the geist. The rest of the section is indeed a mood setter. If you look at what comes before, it's the tense and conflict-ridden Snape substitute scene. At the end of it Harry is wondering why Snape is so hostile to Lupin. We are wondering if Lupin has been poisoned, per Harry's suspicions about the potion taking scene earlier. If Rowling goes straight to the Quidditch match, we'll still be focusing on Snape and the missing Lupin. The start of the game would be anti-climactic. Instead, Rowling sends in Peeves for comic relief, then gives us a long morning in which Harry's apprehension over the coming match can slowly build." "A palate-cleansing interlude, in other words," sneers Dicentra. "Like a couple of soda crackers between courses? Perhaps, but you're supposing that the Snape-as-Substitute scene comes across as anything more than further evidence that Snape's an obnoxious git, at first reading. The last thing we hear of that scene is Ron fuming because he was sentenced to clean out the bedpans in the infirmary without magic. Perhaps you're saying that she is courteous enough not to skip to the oatmeal straightway, so to spare our delicate constitutions? Well then, let's say it does serve that purpose. In that case, ANY scene would have served that purpose, which further demonstrates the superfluous nature of its content." "Let me try," says Debbie, elbowing Pippin out of the way. "Harry's restlessness also paves the way for his first defeat at Quidditch. Though the immediate cause of defeat was the appearance of the Dementors, the omens of defeat are already there. Harry is presented as weakened and unable to resist in any way shape or form, through cold, wet, and exhaustion from lack of sleep. In addition, it very nicely parallels the night before the next Quidditch match, when he again sees Crookshanks prowling on the grounds and thinks it's the Grim; and the night before the last Quidditch match, when Harry again can't sleep and sees Crookshanks through the window, but with dog-Sirius this time. The scene establishes a new pattern of Harry's restlessness before Quidditch matches." Dicentra contemplates these points, and flips through the pages again. "Lessee... how about some quick little examples..." "Harry's restlessness" There is no mention of Harry being restless in the superfluous scene. No clenched stomach, no obsessive thoughts, no worrying "what if." "Harry is presented as weakened and unable to resist ... through cold, wet, and exhaustion from lack of sleep." No mention of Harry being tired or trying to keep his eyes open or anything like that. Cold we have. Tiredness, nope. "It nicely parallels the night before the next Quidditch match when he again sees Crookshanks ... and thinks it's the Grim." Not sure how this is a parallel, but whatever you say. :D "Harry again can't sleep and sees Crookshanks through the window..." He is awakened by a nightmare brought on by all the pressure Wood and all of Gryffindor are putting on him to win the final game by 200 points. The whole school is a pressure cooker at this point. But no mention of him not being able to go to back to sleep. "The scene establishes a new pattern of Harry's restlessness before Quidditch matches." Again, he doesn't seem restless before the first two matches. The only thing these three matches have in common is he sees Crookshanks at night, twice associated with the Grim, which is what gives him the willies and the feeling of impending doom. But the scene in question, the one represented by that can(n)on right there (and get your hands off of it already), establishes no mood of restlessness, no feeling of impending doom, no Grim." Dicentra folds her arms and looks smugly at Debbie and Pippin, who roll their eyes. Dicentra shoos them away from the can(n)on. "This baby is staying right where it is, ladies. Right next to the *whole chapter* of GoF that Cindy gave me. Now, Disapparate out of here before I call the brute squad." With two faint pops, Debbie and Pippin disappear. --Dicentra, who needs a name for this barge, preferably an acronym From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Fri Jun 21 18:44:43 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 18:44:43 -0000 Subject: Killing Harry, Smart!Voldemort (WAS Spying Game II ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40164 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Having missed out *completely* on MAGICDISHWASHER, I have decided > to offer my own thoughts on SpyGame II before it is too late. Even > if I have nothing to say worth saying. ;-) > > ***The Portkey is two-way to allow Harry a line of retreat. *** > > > > It has been suggested that Voldemort is going to use the two-way > > Portkey to launch an attack directly into Hogwarts, using the > > > element of surprise. > > > > > This suggests that the Portkey can have only one use - if its > > deliberately two way nature is NOT aimed at Death Eaters, it can > > only be aimed at Harry. Voldemort has given Harry a line of retreat. > > Uh oh. > > I was really rolling there with Pip, particularly as she was making > *so* much headway with Smart!Voldemort. But then we do an about- > face and go straight back to DumbAsAFencepost!Voldemort. Plan B is > that Voldemort is going to *let* Harry escape so that Harry can go > get *stronger*? So that he can learn how to use his wand, learn > how to cast Dark Curses, learn to defend himself, and generally > grow into a Superhero? So that Harry will be really ready and > experienced and cool as a cucumber when it is time for their next > confrontation? > > Whoa! Doesn't the Evil Overlord Handbook say anything about > *that*? > > Eh, well, maybe it's in the footnotes. ;-) > > I think that the only way Harry was getting out of that graveyard > was over Voldemort's dead body. Voldemort didn't *want* there to > be three more books. Oh, no. He was ending it right there, and he > didn't need or want a Plan B. > > Cindy Hmm... Believe it or not, I actually hadn't thought of the idea that the two- way nature of the Triwizard cup might have been an accident caused by its already being enchanted as a PortKey to get the winner out of the maze safely. [ blush ] I think that was Alexander's suggestion? Smart thinking, whoever it was :-). But, while this gives MUCH more credence to Smart!Voldemort, so much so, that I'd be quite happy to say, consider it as alternative B2, I still think Plan B (giving Harry misinformation) was in operation. Harry has just escaped too many times for Smart!Voldemort not to consider that it might happen again, however much he tried to prevent it. What makes Plan B very likely indeed is that Voldemort is a liar anyway. Harry catches him out in the very first book (PS/SS p. 213). JKR also describes him as a liar in one of her interviews (I'm having serious problems getting online ATM, so can't look the reference up.) - he lies about Hagrid keeping werewolf cubs under his bed. And Harry *might* have turned out too powerful to kill or capture - in fact, he comes extremely close to being just that. Pip (who has currently subjected her computer to every virus scan and test known to a handy CompSci undergrad; all of which say there is nothing wrong. But still gets Gobbledegook downloaded 50% of the time.) From temporary_blue at yahoo.ca Fri Jun 21 18:09:54 2002 From: temporary_blue at yahoo.ca (temporary_blue at yahoo.ca) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:09:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Wand Making Message-ID: <20020621180954.6713.qmail@web14302.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40165 I feel like a caramilk commercial, but. . . how does one get the core into a wand? I always pictured wands as being solid all the way through to the core (the wood having been carved/whittled/whatever the proper term is down into the proper shape by the wand maker in question). Ann ______________________________________________________________________ Post your ad for free now! http://personals.yahoo.ca From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Fri Jun 21 19:26:19 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 20:26:19 +0100 Subject: Wand Making References: <20020621180954.6713.qmail@web14302.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <014a01c21959$84ff41e0$429f5651@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 40166 What's a caramilk commercial?? Wands are made by experts like Olivanders who, I suspect use magical means to seal a wand once it has been * created * once the central core has been selected. Wands, being highly individual, must have a high degree of specialist input from the creator. Felicia ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 7:09 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wand Making > I feel like a caramilk commercial, but. . . how does > one get the core into a wand? I always pictured wands > as being solid all the way through to the core (the > wood having been carved/whittled/whatever the proper > term is down into the proper shape by the wand maker > in question). > > Ann > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Post your ad for free now! http://personals.yahoo.ca > > > > ________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 dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri Jun 21 20:27:58 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 16:27:58 -0400 Subject: Ever so Evil poll report Message-ID: <5C821A09.02DC95BF.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40167 Time for an interim report on the Ever-So-Evil poll. You can find it at groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=929853 Note: the numbers may have changed slightly by the time you read this. Here are a few findings; they are mostly pretty obvious. Turnout was shockingly poor. Only 300 or so votes out of 4000+ members. And since you can vote for more than one character, we can't be sure that as many as 300 people voted. The volume of theorising on the list does not reflect the views of the voting electorate. Evil!Lupin and Moody got 5 votes each. McGonagall did slightly better, with 14 votes putting her into 8th place, but still hardly a ringing endorsement. On the other hand, that trusty old warhorse, Cornelius Fudge, easily topped the poll (perhaps this is how he got to be Minister for Magic?), gaining 16% of the vote (51 votes). In his case though, there is the question of what we mean by 'ever so evil': are people voting because they believe he is a secret Voldemort supporter, ot because they see his temporisation at the end of GOF as evil in itself. I think a similar question may be raised regarding Draco Malfoy, who did well, coming third with nearly 11%. Is it that he is seen as becoming much worse, or just that if he merely remains satisfyingly nasty, that qualifies him for a vote? Ludo Bagman's following is less ambiguous, and he may therefore be seen for the time being as king of the flying hedgehogs (see Hypotheticalley in the admin files for an explanation). I would like to know whether electors see him as someone who has been evil all along, someone who was evil and will go back to it soon, or someone merely venal who is about to suffer a major fall. It's interesting that despite Penny's best endeavours, there is still a hard core of Percy-haters: 25 of them, no less. At the bottom of the list, I am surprised to see that there are *no* votes whatsoever for the Weasley parents. With all the misplaced ingenuity sloshing around on this list, surely *someone* can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that Voldemort is merely the puppet of the shadowy mastermind Arthur Weasley. Or possibly that Voldemort is AW on polyjuice. More pleasing is the low vote for Severus Snape: if HPFGU have any say, his redemption is secure. What about the 'other' vote - 33 votes? Who did I miss? Rita Skeeter? or were these votes just cast on the general belief that if you name an evil person, JKR will magically ensure that you are wrong (perhaps this is the reason the WW refers to Voldemort as he-who-must-not-be-named: it's a way of avoiding narrative surprises, of fending off the malicious humour of their capricious creator). I hope it isn't Hermione. And what of the 'no' vote: 10 people voted that there are no secretly Ever So Evil characters at the end of GOF. Everybody is exactly who they seem. It's not totally implausible, as virtually all the thus-far revealed villains have been new to the volume in which they were introduced: Scabbers is the only exception. Anyone want to comment? 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 skelkins at attbi.com Fri Jun 21 20:37:19 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 20:37:19 -0000 Subject: Arthur Weasley With Imperius -- Now, With New Canon! (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40168 This message contains much reprise of my pet "Arthur Weasley With Imperius" speculation. It also, however, includes some brand new material, which can be found towards the end of the defense. ----- Massive Road Trauma (Gee, that's a bummer -- hope it gets better) wrote: > My apologies if this has been discussed before. > I was re-reading Goblet of Fire last night, and came across a chunk > of text that jumped out of me (although maybe after reading this > board for too long, I'm *looking* for subtext). Hey, if you don't take that Egg under the surface of the water, then how are you ever going to be able to understand what it's really trying to tell you? Subtext is good. We like subtext. ;-) MRT, you have made my day. "Imperio'd Arthur Weasley" is one of my all-time *favorite* pet theories (see messages #37121, 34232), and learning that somebody else was struck by the possibility upon reading GoF (even while out on a subtext hunt) makes me *so* happy, because if someone else saw it there without prompting...why, then it just *must* be true! Right? Right? Here is my defense for the notion that poor Arthur Weasley was indeed a victim of the Imperius Curse at some point in time during Voldemort's first rise to power. Much of this has been snipped from previous posts on the subject, but I've now added Yet More Canon, for those who like their speculations crunchy and wholesome and nutritious. ----- Canonical evidence for Arthur Weasley With Imperius 1) Evidence that there were many genuine victims of the Imperius Curse. I believe that there were indeed at least a *few* wizards who really were placed under the Imperius Curse against their will during Voldemort's first rise (rather than just claiming that they had been to escape punishment for their crimes). In the Pensieve chapter of GoF, Karkaroff names Mulciber: "he specialized in the Imperius Curse, forced countless people to do horrific things!" In Chapter Four of PS, Hagrid tells Harry that after Voldemort's disappearance: "People who was on his side came back ter ours. Some of 'em came outta kinda trances. Don' reckon they could've done if he was coming back." Nor do I think that Hagrid is talking about the likes of Lucius Malfoy: Hagrid seems steadfastly unimpressed with the Malfoys and their claims of innocence. Crouch/Moody supports this assertion in Chapter 14 of GoF: "Years back, there were a lot of witches and wizards being controlled by the Imperius Curse. . . .Some job for the Ministry, trying to sort out who was being forced to act, and who was acting of their own free will." When talking to Harry about the dark days of Voldemort's rise, both Hagrid and Sirius emphasize the difficulties of knowing who could really be trusted. This is consistent with a situation in which a number of people are not only turning traitor willingly, like Pettigrew, but also being manipulated against their own volition. Canon has also provided us with examples of people being so manipulated. The unfortunate Elder Crouch suffers under the Imperius through most of GoF. During the Third Task, poor Viktor Krum is not only placed under it, but also forced to cast *Cruciatus* while under its influence. We have been given hard evidence to support both the truth of the assertion that the curse is indeed difficult to resist *and* the implication that one can be forced to act very much against ones own inclinations or desires while under its control. So although nearly everyone we have seen who claims to have been a victim of the Imperius Curse in canon has been lying, I nonetheless believe that there were quite a number of genuine victims of the curse during Voldemort's first rise to power. 2) Targetting of younger ministry officials as part of the Death Eater modus operandi We already know that Voldemort had an interest in infiltrating the Ministry. Rookwood of the Department of Mysteries was the big fish that Karkaroff was able to offer up as part of his plea bargain in the Pensieve scene. We also know that Voldemort's organization sought to make use of the ministry's younger and more vulnerable workers, people who had access to documentation but were not likely to be under very close supervision. We see evidence of that in Ludo Bagman's trial, also in the Pensieve chapter. It seems quite likely to me that they would have achieved this end not only by deceiving the gullible (as with Bagman), but also through judicious use of the Imperius Curse. In fact, Crouch/Moody implies as much in Chapter 14 of GoF, when he says: "Gave the Ministry a lot of trouble at one time, the Imperius Curse." At the time of Voldemort's first rise, Arthur Weasley would have been a relatively young and likely low-ranked ministry official: precisely the sort of person most likely to be targetted by the Death Eaters for exploitation. 3) Arthur's particular hatred of Lucius Malfoy Lucius Malfoy's lame and childish taunts about Arthur's failures as a provider are enough to goad him to initiate physical violence. This may simply be read as evidence that the two were at Hogwart's together: there certainly is, to my mind, a marked schoolboy flavor to their relationship. I do believe that they were likely at Hogwarts together. And of course, they have some serious political disagreements as well. None of this suffices, though, to account for quite the degree of bitterness that I detect in Arthur's attitude towards Lucius Malfoy. It strikes me as highly significant that although there is a strong cultural prohibition on speaking to ones children about the days of Voldemort's rise, and although we often see evidence that the Weasley family abides by this prohibition, Arthur has nonetheless apparently gone out of his way to talk about Lucius Malfoy's role in the war to even his younger children. As an eleven-year-old boy just starting school, Ron already has knowledge of the precise details of Lucius Malfoy's acquittal. At the beginning of PS, he tells Harry: "'I've heard of his family,' said Ron darkly. 'They were some of the first to come back to our side after You-Know-Who disappeared. Said they'd been bewitched. My dad doesn't believe it. He says Malfoy's father didn't need an excuse to go over to the Dark Side.'" This is very specific knowledge for a kid who was raised in a culture that displays a pathological aversion to the idea of ever talking -- or even of thinking -- about those days. The Weasley parents do not seem to make a practice of speaking to their children about such matters. Ron doesn't give the impression of knowing about the Longbottoms, for example. He doesn't recognize the Dark Mark when he sees it, either. For that matter, he doesn't even know what the Dark Mark *is.* And yet he happens to know the specific grounds on which Lucius Malfoy was acquitted ten years ago? Why would Arthur have told Ron about Lucius Malfoy's acquittal, when he's never even explained to the boy what the Dark Mark was? Well, if he really had *sincerely* been placed under the Imperius Curse at some point during Voldemort's reign, then the fact that Lucius Malfoy got off on the same claim must have really rankled. It might even have rankled badly enough for him to have told his younger children about it, in spite of the evident reluctance of wizarding culture -- the Weasley family included -- to speak of such matters. 4) Crouch/Moody's DADA Class The "The Unforgivable Curses" chapter of GoF, which MRT cited in his (?)message is, to my mind, by far the strongest evidence for the notion that Arthur Weasley was one of Voldemort's Imperius victims. Although "several hands...[rise]...tentatively into the air" when Crouch, as Moody, invites his students to name the Unforgivables for him, he chooses to call upon Ron. He has already, at the very beginning of the DADA class, identified Ron as Arthur Weasley's son. Ron names the Imperius Curse, adding that he knows of it because his father has mentioned it to him. This seems to please Crouch immensely. "'Ah, yes,' said Moody appreciatively. 'Your father *would* know that one. Gave the Ministry a lot of trouble at one time, the Imperius Curse.'" Now, we all know what Crouch is. He's a sadist, isn't he? He's a sadist, and he's a show-off; and he is sly. He just *loves* to entertain himself by making double-edged statements with malicious secondary meanings. Just about everything he says throughout the novel has some nasty message lurking beneath it. So is it possible that there could have been a second meaning underlying that "your father *would* know that one," as well as some reason for him to be so very "appreciative" of Ron's answer? Oh, yes. I think that's possible. I think that's definitely possible. I also see a certain symmetry emerging in this chapter if we accept as our starting hypothesis that Ron's father was indeed, at one time, a victim of the Imperius Curse. Crouch calls on Ron to volunteer the name of the Imperius. He calls on Neville to volunteer the name of the Cruciatus. I feel absolutely certain that he was just *dying* for Harry to raise his hand, so that he could force him to speak the name of the Avada Kedavra. Alas for Crouch, though, Harry is an ignoramus, and so he was forced to call on Hermione instead. All the same, he *did* go out of his way to draw the class' attention to Harry after his demonstration of the curse, as well as forcibly reminding Harry that the Avada Kedavra was how his parents died. Crouch is just like that. He's clever and cruel, and he has some...well, let's just say some serious parental issues. 5) Hints of a Weasley family weakness to Imperius Harry is a freak in his ability to shrug off the Imperius Curse -- that much is clear -- but the text also implies that Ron may have an unusual degree of difficulty with this task. On their way to lunch after DADA class, in Chapter 15, Ron is "skipping on every alternate step. . . .Moody assured him the effects would wear off by lunch- time." No other student is shown to suffer from such lingering after-effects after any of Moody's classes. Even Neville Longbottom, who is not only a poor student but also the character that JKR usually selects to serve similarly slapstick comedic functions in the text, is never shown having this problem. This is particularly odd because nowhere else in canon is Ron depicted as a poor student. He does have some difficulties in CoS, but only because of his broken wand; he doesn't take Divination at all seriously, but then, neither do any of the other male Gryffindor students. Ordinarily, Ron is canonically depicted as a perfectly average student. So why the trouble with the Imperius Curse? He's not really a weak-willed person at all. Well, could it be a family trait? Riddle's diary did quite the job on Ginny too. 6) Arthur Weasley's unwillingness to risk exposure to the allure of the Veela during the QWC. It seems reasonable to me that someone who was once victimized by the Imperius Curse -- particularly by forces as hostile to ones personal inclinations as the Death Eaters were to Muggle-loving Arthur Weasley -- would be *particularly* on guard against falling prey to similar mental magics a second time around. Indeed, one might even be a bit phobic about that possibility. A month or so ago, Irene and the Catlady were having a discussion about the mystery of the "third time Imperius" line in the graveyard scene of GoF ("And Harry felt, for the third time in his life, the sensation that his mind had been wiped of all thought..."). In the course of that discussion, either Irene or the Catlady (I can't remember which, sorry) proposed that perhaps the first time had actually been Harry's exposure to the Veela at the QWC. The Catlady wrote: > Hmm. Does that suggest that Veela magic is a form of innate and > perhaps automatic Imperius Curse? The command "Desire me!" cast on > any and all men in the vicinity Irene then added: > That would explain also why Harry is handling it better than Ron. > Oh, and does it mean that there is more to Arthur Weasley than > meets the eye? She provided this bit of canon: > "'Aaah!' He suddenly whipped off his glasses and polished them > hurriedly on his robes. *'Veela!'*" Yes. It is suggestive that, isn't it? Unlike Irene, though, I don't view it as evidence that Arthur is unusually resistant to the allure of the Veela. Far to the contrary, I think it shows that he is -- or perhaps merely fears himself to be -- even more vulnerable than ordinary men. Just look at what he does. He lets out an exclamation, and then he very quickly *takes his glasses off,* under the pretext of needing to clean them. We never see him put them back on his face. My guess is that he didn't do so until the Veela were once more safely out of his range of vision. Arthur does not want to see the veela. Now, sure, Arthur's a married man and all. He's a family guy. I get that. But he's still a *man,* isn't he? And surely there is no particular stigma attached to drooling a bit over the veela, is there? Even if Molly found out about it somehow (and she's not even there at the QWC, so it isn't that Arthur is trying to spare her feelings in any immediate sense), she would understand. She wouldn't like it much, maybe, but she'd hardly throw a frying pan at him for it, would she? I doubt it. So why on earth does Arthur seem so eager to get those glasses off of his face? Well, if the allure of the Veela is kin to, or even *feels* anything like the Imperius Curse, then quite possibly he's unusually skittish about that. It scares him. He doesn't want to be exposed to it, and so he tries to reduce the Veela's power to affect on him by rendering himself effectively blind, thus removing the entire visual component from the Veelas' seductive powers. 6) Implications of a Voldemort-related skeleton in the Weasley family closet Of course, if poor Arthur Weasley really *had* spent some time under the Imperius Curse back in the bad old days, then clearly no one has ever told Ron or the Twins about it. While Ron doesn't care at all for those spiders, Crouch's Imperius demonstration doesn't otherwise seem to bother him at all -- he thinks that it's cool -- and he has no negative reaction to Crouch's comment about his father. Similarly, the Twins show no signs of distress over Crouch/Moody's DADA class; on the contrary, they are overflowing with enthusiasm about it. The older children, on the other hand, would likely know about it, because they would have been old enough to remember their father being questioned and then absolved by the MoM. Bill and Charlie would know. Percy might or might not, depending on how astute a child he was, how careless adults were about speaking of the matter in his presence, and whether or not Bill and Charlie understood that it was a secret Not For Younger Ears. So is there any evidence in the text that Bill and/or Charlie are hip to something about their father and his relationship to the past, something that the younger children in the family do not know about? I think that there is. At the end of _GoF,_ in Chapter 36, when Dumbledore announces his intention of sending a letter to Arthur to enlist his help in convincing other Ministry officials of the truth of Voldemort's return, Bill immediately volunteers to go to him in person. "'I'll go to Dad,' said Bill, standing up. 'I'll go now.'" It's a fast response. It also has the feel of a preemptive strike. Bill wants to convince Dumbledore not to send Arthur a letter at all. "I'll go right this very second. It will be just as fast as the post. Just please don't make my father learn this news from a *letter.*" It's touching, that, but it is also really very suggestive. Why precisely *is* Bill so concerned about Arthur's feelings when it comes to this topic? I think that Arthur was an Imperius victim, and that Bill knows it. I think that we also see evidence of this in Chapter Nine of GoF. There are peculiar undercurrents to all of the exchanges between Arthur and Number One Son Bill in this chapter. Again, Bill seems to be playing a protective role. He is the one to change the subject away from the Dark Mark, when Arthur seems to be becoming dangerously emotional on the topic and when the silence following Arthur's faltering seems to be dragging on for too long (Dangerously long, perhaps? Long enough that Bill fears that it might provoke a confessional?). When Bill does change the subject, he does so in a brisk, no-nonsense tone which seems to me to be quite deliberately intended to lower the emotional temperature ("Buck up, Dad"). His attempt to pull the conversation out of these dangerous waters fails, though. Harry asks what Death Eaters are. Ron brings up the Malfoys. Arthur is still responding emotionally: he laughs hollowly, he speaks about the DEs with undeniable bitterness. Bill is not pleased. The next time that he chimes into the discussion, in response to Ron's continuing to pursue the matter of the Dark Mark, his tone is actively irritable: "Use your brains, Ron." The matter is not all that easily dismissed, though, is it? The rest of the conversation makes particular emotional sense once we assume that Arthur was indeed an Imperius victim, and that eldest son Bill is aware of that fact. Bill's summary of the likely motivations of the ex-DEs at the Cup starts to venture into some very dangerous territory here: "If they really were Death Eaters, they worked very hard to keep out of Azkaban when You-Know-Who lost power, and told all sorts of lies about him forcing them to kill and torture people." This is an interesting line, in part because it seems to be largely a parroting of what we already know Arthur has told Ron about Malfoy. Clearly this is a *big* issue for Arthur -- and he has seen to it that it has become a source of particular indignation for his children as well. It's also interesting, though, because it begs the question of why precisely Bill is bringing this subject up again, when previously he seemed to be working to deflect attention away from it. What's up with that? It's been eating at him, I think, the question of precisely what Daddy did during the war. It's not really a comfortable line of thought at all, is it, even if Bill accepts that his father was essentially innocent? It can't help but trouble him. Just what *did* his father do while under the Imperius, anyway? As I read it, Arthur's next line is designed to reassure him. Although he is ostensibly answering Hermione, his answer doesn't strike me as really directed at Hermione at all. It's directed straight at Bill. Hermione asks whether whoever conjured the Dark Mark was doing it to show support or to scare the DEs away. Arthur acknowledges that the answer to that question is unanswerable, and then leaps to point out that *only* Death Eaters were ever taught how to conjure the Dark Mark. It's very much as if he wants to reassure Bill that he was never *himself* forced to do such a thing. (Although it's not really very much of a reassurance, is it? "Torture and murder, perhaps, but let me tell you something, son -- I *never* shot that Dark Mark up into the sky!") 7) Suggestions that the Weasleys feel themselves to owe a debt of gratitude to Mad-Eye Moody This marvellous bit of canon was provided by Abigail, the last time that Imperio'd Arthur came up on the list (at a time when I was sadly away, else I would have commented more, er, promptly on it). I will therefore defer to her own words here. Abigail cited evidence of a special relationship between Arthur and Moody as a defense for the idea that Arthur may at one time have been an Auror. (For more on Arthur-as-Auror, check out Abigail's message #37136 and its follow-ups. Abigail, the Catlady, Barbara, and many other people whose names aren't leaping to mind right now have done a lot of *really* good stuff on this spec, but I'm not going to summarize it here because...well, I'd just be here all day if I did that, wouldn't I?) In message #37136, Abigail wrote: > Has anyone suggested the possibility that Arthur Weasly was, at > some point before the fall of Voldemort, an auror? The thought came > to me when I was thinking about the implied closeness between > Arthur and Moody. Amos Diggory calls on Arthur to bail Moody out > when his flying trashcans attack muggle policemen, and the > reactions from Molly and the older Weasly children seem to suggest > the kind of closeness you might see between former colleagues: > '"I'd better hurry - you have a good term, boys," said Mr Weasly to > Harry, Ron and the twins, draggins a cloak over his shoulders and > preparing to Disapparate. "Molly, are going to be all right taking > the kids to King's Cross?" > "Of Course I will," she said. "You just look after Mad-Eye, we'll > be fine." > ... > "Did someone say Mad-Eye?" Bill asked. > ... > "Your father thinks very highly of Mad-Eye Moody," said Mrs Weasly > sternly.' > In all fairness, Charlie does ask, a few sentences later, whether > Moody was a friend of Dumbledore's, but I believe he says this as > proof that Moody is not insane as George claims him to be. Later on, Abigail acknowledged that this could also serve as canonical suggestion for Imperio'd Arthur: > Or perhaps Moody was respnsible for breaking the Imperius curse > placed on Arthur - if such a thing is possible, I imagine Moody > would be the one to do it. That would put Arthur strongly in his > debt. Like I said in my previous message, I see no conflict between > Arthur-with-Imperius and Arthur-as-auror, so either way, this works > for me. Leaving Auror!Arthur out of this for now, I do think that a bond of gratitude is strongly implied by both Arthur's willingness to bend the law to help out Moody and by the canonical exchange that Abigail cited. Even if Moody had nothing to do with breaking Arthur's Imperius -- I myself consider it far more likely that the curse simply dissipated upon Voldemort's discorporation, as it did with so many of its other victims -- the Weasleys would still have reason to consider themselves quite deeply in Moody's debt if he had been the Auror assigned to investigate Arthur's case. We know that a number of the Aurors were not exactly gentle with suspects during that period in history. Crouch had authorized them to use the Unforgiveables on suspects, which means that they were allowed to use torture in their attempts to uncover the truth. And apparently, a number of them did just that: Sirius claims that some of the Aurors descended to the level of Death Eaters in the last years of the conflict. So given all of that, I think that if I were Arthur Weasley and I had turned myself into the Ministry when my Imperius Curse had been lifted, then I would feel very grateful indeed to have been treated with kindness or consideration or even plain old human decency by the person investigating my case. Grateful enough that my wife might rebuke our children rather strongly for poking fun at the fact that the man's a wee bit unstable these days? Yup. Grateful enough that I would happily go out of my way to use what little clout I have to help cover up for the guy's minor legal indiscretions some thirteen years later? Oh, you betcha. In a heartbeat. ------ So I hope that's reassured you, MRT. You're not the only one here malicious enough to have found themselves contemplating Imperio'd Arthur Weasley. ;-) If you *really* want twisted, though, then how about combining Imperio'd Arthur with a Missing Weasley Child scenario? This is a favored combination for those who like their speculations Dark, bloody and horrific (in TBAY terminology, those who wear "featherboas"). For some reason, I'm guessing that someone named "Massive Road Trauma" might just be a featherboasish sort of person. So here, submitted for your approval, is a quick run-down of "Missing Weasley Child." ------- Evidence people have cited to support the notion that the Weasley family lost a child during voldemort's first rise includes: 1) The large gap in age between Charlie and Percy. Some people have also come up with attempts to organize the Weasley children's names according to an alphabetical schematic in order to bolster the notion that there was a third son, now deceased, born between Charlie and Percy. This is really not at all my favorite line of speculation, though (no offense intended to its adherents), so I'm not going to get into it here. If you're curious about it, though, then you can find a very long and animated discussion of this speculation in the archives from early April. A keyword search for "Weasley names" or "Seventh Son" should do the trick. 2) Ron's description of the composition of his family to Harry in the first book. >From Chapter Six of PS: ". . . . 'Wish I'd had three wizard brothers.' 'Five,' said Ron. For some reason, he was looking gloomy. 'I'm the sixth in our family to go to Hogwarts.'" Both that look of gloom and the fact that Ron says that he is the sixth to *go to Hogwarts,* rather than the sixth son, have been held by some to suggest that Ron had another brother who did not live to reach the age of eleven. 3) The Weasley family's traumatized response to allusions to or reminders of Voldemort's first rise The Weasley family seems to have been unusually psychologically scarred by Voldemort's first rise to power. The entire wizarding world is pathological in this regard, true, but the Weasleys strike many people as carrying even more emotional baggage about Those Dark Times than average wizards. Of Harry's peers, Ron shows the strongest aversion to hearing Voldemort's name spoken outright. Of course, he is also the only one of Harry's close friends who was raised within the wizarding world, so this alone could account for it, if only there were not so many other indications that the Weasley family carries some form of severe yet secret trauma. Take that clock, for example. That paranoiac grandfather clock in the Burrow, the one with the special setting for "mortal peril." Is that really a normal thing for wizarding families to have in their houses? Well, maybe it is. Maybe it is. And yet, I notice that when a situation arises in which some of her family members might actually *be* in mortal peril, Molly doesn't seem to be able to bring herself to look at it to find out for sure. When the rest of her family returns home from the QWC in Chapter 10, for example, she runs out to greet them, practically deranged with relief to see them all safe and sound. "'Arthur -- I've been so worried -- *so worried* --'" Molly is in quite a state. She is described as "pale" and "strained." She hasn't dressed. She's still clutching her copy of the _Daily Prophet,_ although she lets it fall out of her "limp" hand once she has thrown herself into Arthur's arms. In places, she is described as if she might even be tottering on the edge of a nervous breakdown. "'You're all right,' Mrs. Weasley muttered distractedly, releasing Mr. Weasley and staring around at them all with red eyes, 'you're alive....Oh *boys*...'" Why didn't she check the clock? Don't tell me it's a FLINT. It's not a FLINT. JKR didn't forget about the clock, and she didn't want her readers to have forgotten about the clock either. She describes the clock again in the *very same chapter.* The clock is described in full, with special attention paid to that "mortal peril" setting, not *four pages* after her description of Molly's near-hysterical relief to see her family safely home. And Molly looks at it, too, to see if Arthur is on his way home from work yet. So Molly uses the clock. She uses it on a daily basis. The one time she can't bring herself to look at it, apparently, is when someone in her family might really be in danger. This is suggestive. People who have suffered through the agonies of knowing that a loved one has become trapped in a dangerous situation nearly always describe the worst part about that situation as "not knowing for sure." The relatives of those who are "missing in action" in times of war, those who are "as yet unaccounted for" when there has been some terrible disaster -- these people *always* claim that they just want to *know,* that even knowing that their loved one had been killed would be far better than the terrible uncertainty. Right? Molly's different, apparently. Why would that be? Perhaps because that clock has given her bad news before? Arthur's explanation of the significance of the Dark Mark in Chapter 9 is also not only highly emotional, but also highly suggestive: "The terror it inspired ... you have no idea, you're too young. Just picture coming home, and finding the Dark Mark hovering over your house, and knowing what you're about to find inside ..." Mr. Weasley winced. 'Everyone's worst fear ... the very worst ..." "There was silence for a moment." It does sound rather as if he's speaking from personal experience, doesn't it? 4) Congruence with the Seventh Son/Ron Is A Seer theory Some people believe that Ron shows evidence of unconscious prophetic talents throughout the canon, and that this might JKR's way of foreshadowing a plot turn in which Ron will be revealed to be a seer. I have never quite been able to swallow this one myself, but again, if you're interested, there has been plenty of discussion of it in the past. A keyword search for "Seer" or "Seventh Son" should yield plenty of material for you to mull over. The relevance of Seer!Ron to "Missing Weasley Child," of course, is that if Ron really does have a (now deceased) older brother, then that would make him a seventh son. There is strong evidence that Arthur himself comes from a large family. As the Catlady wrote in Message #37174: > Btw, I remain troubled by Draco's statement that "all the Weasleys" > have red hair, no money, and more children than they can afford. > Sure, he was just quoting Lucius, but it seems to me that Lucius > would not have thought of saying such a thing unless there was more > than one Weasley who had numerous children. I agree with Catlady that this comment only really makes sense if we assume that the Weasleys' tendency to have many children is a multi- generational phenomenon. Arthur himself must come from a large family. It is therefore possible that he is himself a seventh son, which would make Ron a Seventh Son of a Seventh Son -- held by Western folklore to imbue one with prophetic powers. ------ Of course, if you combine "Arthur Weasley With Imperius" with "Missing Weasley Child" then it gets rather difficult to avoid wondering whether poor dear sweet mild-mannered Arthur Weasley might actually have been in some way responsible for his own son's death. Such a line of inquiry might also lead you to wonder whether the running parricide motif of _Goblet of Fire_ is ever to be paralleled by a motif of filicide in some future volume. Indeed, if you think overmuch on such matters, then you might find yourself noticing the hazy figure of Unwilling Filicide Arthur Weasley stepping slowly out from the murky shadows of canonical suggestion. But this is such a thoroughly sadistic line of speculative thought that I myself would naturally never dream of suggesting it to anyone. -- Elkins From rowen_lm at yahoo.com Fri Jun 21 19:29:55 2002 From: rowen_lm at yahoo.com (rowen_lm) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 19:29:55 -0000 Subject: Flower names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40169 Random monkey said: << Ooh - I've just noticed something: Lily and Petunia, both flowers.. ok, that's not very significant. >> Buttercup (I find your name very ironic in this post! lol) said: << I've noticed that too... and more to the point, there seem to be loads of flower names in HP. As well as Lily and Petunia, we have Lavender (Brown), Poppy (Pomfrey), Fleur (Delacour), Pansy (Parkinson), (Padma (Patil - I read somewhere that Padma is Hindi [I think] for Lotus), Narcissa (Malfoy)... I don't know if the number of plant-related names is significant, but it seems possible there's some symbolism there. After all, lilies are supposed to represent (and correct me if I'm wrong here) beauty and death amongst other things. I have no idea what petunias represent, but they're a bit plain and ordinary aren't they? >> Well, check out the definitions of Petunia and Lily on "What's In a Name?"(http://www.theninemuses.net/hp/) Here's an excerpt: "Both Lily and her sister, Petunia, are named after flowers. The lily symbolizes purity and innocence. Compare with the petunia, which symbolizes anger and resentment." Hmmm. I also looked on some flower sites. Lily is "return of happiness" and Petunia is "I am furious!" Very interesting. Lily was sort of a matyr and I guess most of us would view that as pretty pure, although I don't know about return of happiness. Petunia is definetly(sp? I can never spell it!) bitter and furious about Lily (her speach in the Hut-on-the-Rock scene!). I looked up the meanings of the other names you sited as well: Lavender Brown - I couldn't find any meanings here. Maybe it's just two colors! lol Poppy Pomfrey - An excerpt for WIAN?: "The poppy is one of the oldest medicinal plants." and "Her (last) name is most likely derived from "comfrey", a medicinal plant" The meaning for Poppies is "pleasure, consolation, wealth, success." Fluer Delacour - We all know this just means "Flower of the Court." Pansy Parkinson - Odd meaning: "thoughts." The word pansy can also mean a push over. (i.e. "You're such a pansy!") Padma - Another excerpt from WIAN?: "Padma (Ganga) is the Hindu goddess of the Ganges, India's most sacred river. She is the sister of the mountain goddess Parvati." It also means lotus, which stands for "estranged love." Narcissa - The flower is the Narcissus, meaning "Egotism, Formality." Both the flower and the name are a reference to the Greek myth of Narcissus, who was so beautiful that he fell in love with his reflection in a pool, stayed to look at himself and died. I'm also adding Moaning Myrtle to this. Myrtle stands for "home or love." It's also a Hebrew emblem of marriage! lol Rowen Avalon From suzchiles at pobox.com Fri Jun 21 21:03:14 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:03:14 -0700 Subject: Harry's State of Mind Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40170 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 From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Fri Jun 21 22:04:41 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 22:04:41 -0000 Subject: Hagrid, Dumbledore, & Second Chances (WAS Hagrid the Betrayer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40171 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cmf_usc" wrote: > Cindy wrote: > << in Harry's life (one who breaks rules as a matter of convenience > and one who routinely exercises the most consistently poor judgment > of any adult character in the books), first as Dumbledore's > representative and then as a full-fledged *teacher.* I'm asked to > believe that Dumbledore thinks Hagrid's weaknesses are to be > tolerated. I'm asked to believe the other teachers get on with > Hagrid and consider him a legitimate colleague (I cannot *imagine* > why Snape doesn't hound Hagrid the way Snape hounds Neville).>>> > > Caroline Writes: > Yes. You see, this actually sums up my problems with Dumbledore as > well. Second chances are all very good, imho, but when you give > them, don't you expect some repentance in return? Shouldn't > the forgiven one make a good faith effort to turn away from > whatever he (and so far it's always a he in the Potterverse) did to > screw things up so royally in the first place? > Hagrid doesn't seem to have repented. His fascination > for "interestin' creatures" still causes danger for > students, just like it did, oh, 50 years ago. > > > That's what I worry about. What is she *doing* with Hagrid? I'm beginning to wonder what full-blood giants are like. Maybe this is why Dumbledore is so tolerant of what would, in a full-blood human, be character flaws - because they're simply part of Hagrid's 'Giantness'. Thing that strikes me about Hagrid is his deep honesty - he finds it embarrassing to lie, if he's angry at someone he can't hide it, when he's upset he cries buckets. All his emotions are worn on his sleeve. He also seems to find it difficult to understand duplicity - his problems with Fluffy in PS/SS were largely due to not understanding that a man in a pub asking about an interestin' creature might have other motives than simple curiosity, or a shared interest in Fantastic Beasts. Equally, after his interview with Rita Skeeter, he's genuinely puzzled that she seemed to want to ask about Harry - which is not what she'd said she wanted to talk about. Ron describes the Giants as vicious (with one of his 'everyone knows' - trans. 'it probably isn't true at all'). I just wonder; if the Giants are like Hagrid in this utter honesty, they would find it very hard to deal with human lies and double- dealing, would probably get angry at it - and if they're like Hagrid and unable to hide that anger; well, a 20 foot giant getting seriously angry could look pretty vicious. It might also explain part of Hagrid's mum having left him; they're not very maternal, he's weaned, so his father can now look after him, why pretend to feelings you don't feel? So part of Dumbledore's reasons for making him a teacher would be the feeling that it is now time for the students to start dealing with part-humans - and perhaps then some will learn to accept them for what they are, instead of judging them by human characteristics that they just don't have. I would be fascinated if Snape did turn out to be part-Vampire; Vampires, of course, are 'predators' and Humans are 'prey'. Some of his casual cruelty might turn out to be as much instinctive behaviour as a cat making a little furry thing squeak. [grin] Mind you, on the whole I prefer Snape human and just plain nasty [even bigger grin]. Pip(still with computer problems - the virus scanner reports 'clear' though, so fingers crossed that it's telling the truth). From naama_gat at hotmail.com Fri Jun 21 22:14:27 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 22:14:27 -0000 Subject: Hagrid the Betrayer/ Hagrid, the one who can't handle his job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40172 Cindy: The problem is that Hagrid is being asked to fill a function that he shouldn't be asked to fill. He is being asked to be a guardian of Harry, someone who is preparing Harry to do whatever it is that he is so clearly destined to do. If Hagrid were just the groundskeeper the way Filch is just the caretaker), there wouldn't be a problem. Hagrid could be child-like, the loveable oaf, and I would be *fine* with that. Me: But, Cindy, where is it said or implied that Hagrid is Harry's guardian, or that he is supposed to prepare him to his destiny? If one person can be said to have that role, it's Dumbledore. Hagrid only twice is given sole responsibility over Harry. When he brings him, as a baby, to Privet Drive, and when he brings Harry from the island to Diagon Alley. But that doesn't make him a guardian. That makes him the archetypal Doorkeeper (of the WW). Once Harry is within the WW, it is clearly Dumbledore who functions as his mentor and guardian. Cindy: But instead, I'm asked to accept Hagrid as an authority figure in Harry's life (one who breaks rules as a matter of convenience and one who routinely exercises the most consistently poor judgment of any adult character in the books), first as Dumbledore's representative and then as a full-fledged *teacher.* Naama: Well, again, I don't see him as an authority figure in Harry's life. I'm not even sure why you do - because he gets Harry from the Dursleys? In what sense is he an authority figure at that point? I have to say, also, that Harry doesn't perceive Hagrid as an authority figure. Maybe that's really the central point here. *Harry* isn't disappointed in him, is he? Harry doesn't seem to expect Hagrid to mentor him. Hagrid is a friend, as far as Harry is concerned. What he does expect from him is friendship, warmth, loyalty - all of which Hagrid gives in abundance. (I see Hagrid, I guess, like having a big brother on the playing ground - someone who looks out for you, whose presence gives you confidence, but who isn't an authority figure.) That's why I don't have any problem with people describing Hagrid as childish. So he's childish in some ways. So what? What's wrong with that? It's one of the reasons Harry, Ron and Hermione find him so easy to talk to and trust. There are a lot of upsides to childishness - frankness, single minded loyalty, spontanaeity, openness. Since I don't see Hagrid as an authority figure, but as a good friend - well, as these are the qualities I like my friends to have, I think Hagrid is just perfect for the job. Cindy: I'm asked to believe that Dumbledore thinks Hagrid's weaknesses are to be tolerated. Me: If Dumbledore can be imagined to tolerate Snape's bullying of his students, then I don't see why it's impossible to imagine him tolerating Hagrid's flaws. Anti-Hagrids are often bothered by the Buckbeak incident, but what really happened was that Draco received a flesh wound that was healed within a few minutes. The incident was blown out of proportions because Draco malingered - lying in order to to get Hagrid fired. In Hogwarts, it is the norm for studnets to deal with dangerous creatures and substances. Students are forever getting hurt in lessons (especially in potions, BTW. Does that mean that Snape is *incompetent*?! ;-P) Hagrid gave the students the proper warning as to how to approach and deal with Hyppogriffs. It's not his fault that Draco did not heed that warning. Would you blame Prof Sprout if a student had blacked out for several hours because s/he had removed the earmuffs while re-potting the Mandrakes ? After she had explicitly told them the consequences of that? And what about Neville's flight accident? Why is nobody accusing Hooch of "oafishness"? Now, that was really a life threatening situation, right? If Neville had gone just a bit higher he might easily have died. Apparantely, then, a certain level of risk is the norm at Hogwarts. So why pick on Hagrid?! Naama From divaclv at aol.com Fri Jun 21 22:21:24 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 22:21:24 -0000 Subject: Flower names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40173 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rowen_lm" wrote: > Random monkey said: > > Hmmm. I also looked on some flower sites. Lily is "return of > happiness" and Petunia is "I am furious!" Very interesting. > > Lily was sort of a matyr and I guess most of us would view that as > pretty pure, although I don't know about return of happiness. Lilies are also closely associated with Easter, which is the festival of rebirth and salvation--which ties in with Lily as a martyr, and Harry being protected as a result of her sacrifice. > Padma - Another excerpt from WIAN?: "Padma (Ganga) is the Hindu > goddess of the Ganges, India's most sacred river. She is the sister > of the mountain goddess Parvati." It also means lotus, which stands > for "estranged love." As I recall, the lotus in Eastern symbolism is a sign of life and/or wisdom. Depending on how it appears in Hindu art, it can have several meanings. > I'm also adding Moaning Myrtle to this. Myrtle stands for "home or > love." It's also a Hebrew emblem of marriage! lol I'm going to have to check my Hamilton on this, but I think the myrtle was also the sacred tree of Aphrodite...I could be wrong here. ~Christi From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri Jun 21 22:42:42 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 22:42:42 -0000 Subject: Which Weasley Is Ever So Evil? (WAS Arthur Weasley With Imperius -- ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40174 David, Master of the Ever So Evil Polling, wrote: > What about the 'other' vote - 33 votes? Who did I miss? Rita >Skeeter? Oh, dear. David, are you *sure* you want to ask that? Are you *certain?* Because I *know* who these 33 people voted for. Someone so Evil, so Awful, so Heinous, that it becomes hard for me even to utter the name. So I won't. Not until farther down in this post, anyway. ;-) Elkins observed: > So is there any evidence in the text that Bill and/or Charlie are >hip to something about their father and his relationship to the >past, something that the younger children in the family do not know >about? > > I think that there is. > > At the end of _GoF,_ in Chapter 36, when Dumbledore announces his > intention of sending a letter to Arthur to enlist his help in > convincing other Ministry officials of the truth of Voldemort's > return, Bill immediately volunteers to go to him in person. > > "'I'll go to Dad,' said Bill, standing up. 'I'll go now.'" Uh, oh. Elkins got me thinking here, and no good can ever come from that. Let's consider her evidence about which Weasley may have been placed under the Imperius Curse when Voldemort first came to power. Elkins: > It's touching, that, but it is also really very suggestive. Why > precisely *is* Bill so concerned about Arthur's feelings when it > comes to this topic? > > I think that Arthur was an Imperius victim, and that Bill knows it. Well, maybe. Maybe. But don't you think it is *far* more likely that *Bill* was an Imperius Victim during Voldemort's first campaign? Oh, it makes sense, all right. Voldemort likes to use the vulnerable, like younger members of MoM. Weasleys are easy to control. Bill is harsh with Ron when Ron is discussing the Dark Mark and DEs. The Imperius Curse can make people do things they normally aren't capable of. Well, is all of that a clue that *Bill* was under Imperius or Arthur? Consider this: what is Bill's occupation, anyway? That's right. He's a *Curse Breaker*! Gee, isn't that *just* the sort of thing you'd expect? When Bill was a teen or young man (we don't know his age exactly, and I have to wonder if *that* is by accident), he was placed under Imperius. Who knows, Bill might have even rubbed out that missing Weasley. Now that Voldemort is gone, Bill selects a career to make sure that he is prepared to fight the Good Fight should Voldemort ever return -- a career in which he is sure he'll never be controlled by Imperius again. He becomes a *Curse Breaker*! So is Bill eager to help out in the fight against a re-born Voldemort? Is he willing to go to Dad, possibly assuring Arthur that Bill is strong, that Bill can be counted upon, that Bill will avenge the Dead Weasley child? You betcha he is! Yeah, no wonder Crouch Jr. would say that the Imperius Curse gave Arthur a hard time. Because Arthur's own first born son was placed under the Imperius Curse and forced to do awful things, that's why! Elkins (quoting Bill): > "If they really were Death Eaters, they worked very hard to keep > out of Azkaban when You-Know-Who lost power, and told all sorts > of lies about him forcing them to kill and torture people." > > This is an interesting line, in part because it seems to be largely > a parroting of what we already know Arthur has told Ron about Malfoy. > Clearly this is a *big* issue for Arthur -- and he has seen to it > that it has become a source of particular indignation for his > children as well. > > It's also interesting, though, because it begs the question of why > precisely Bill is bringing this subject up again, when previously he > seemed to be working to deflect attention away from it. What's up > with that? Oh, I know what is up with that. Bill is speaking from *personal experience* there. Wow, it is kind of haunting when you know the background, isn't it? Need some more canon? I mean, canon I didn't steal *straight from Elkins*? Well, I have it right here! Arthur is explaining the Dark Mark and what happens when you get home and find it hovering over your house. Arthur winces and can't finish his sentence. Then, "There was silence for a moment. Then Bill, removing the sheet from his arm to check on his cut . . . " Oooh, that's subtle, but doesn't that sort of connect Bill's injury to the Dark Mark being fired over the Weasley's house? Yup. Make it 33 votes for Bill, and I think you have your Ever So Evil Poll winner. Ever So Evil during Voldemort's first reign, but Ever So Redeemable now, that is! Cindy -- not even *needing* to mention that Bill has a fang stuck in his ear, for cryin' out loud; how obviously Evil can you get? From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Jun 21 21:19:12 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 16:19:12 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's State of Mind References: Message-ID: <001701c21969$4af49a80$e5a2cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 40175 > From: Zoe > 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 I think that Harry will indeed have a great maturing, actually already did after the graveyard experience. We've seen before that even though he usually is polite, well mannered, etc. (except maybe where Snape is concerned!), he has often been known to get into mischief. Sure some of it is for a good reason, but some on the other hand, is just plain childish mischief (sneaking off to Hogsmeade for example). Now I think he will be more focused, knowing that though it's still okay to have fun (George and Fred's joke shop), the world has become a darker place with Voldemort resurected. Harry's been very easy going so far, I expect he'll become more serious in the next three books. Richelle From naama_gat at hotmail.com Fri Jun 21 23:07:27 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 23:07:27 -0000 Subject: Hagrid, Dumbledore, & Second Chances (WAS Hagrid the Betrayer) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40176 Caroline: You [Cindy] summed up my problems with Hagrid in one wonderful sentence: << I'm asked to believe that Dumbledore thinks Hagrid's weaknesses are to be tolerated.>> Yes. You see, this actually sums up my problems with Dumbledore as well. Second chances are all very good, imho, but when you give them, don't you expect some repentance in return? Shouldn't the forgiven one make a good faith effort to turn away from whatever he (and so far it's always a he in the Potterverse) did to screw things up so royally in the first place? That's what I worry about. What is she *doing* with Hagrid? What message is JKR trying to send about second chances? That they should be handed about like candy? I hope not. And I guess that's why I'm sort of pulling for a Hagrid screw-up down the pipe. So far, Dumbledore's track record with the second chances just doesn't seem to be working out in the good guy's favor. There's Hagrid, of course. Then we've got Lupin, in denial about his werewolfish-ness, causing danger to students as a teenager and as an adult. It remains to be seen what Sirius will make of his second chance. Will his animosity towards Snape cause major problems, just as it did in their youth? (Not trying to instigate any Prank discussions here, I promise!) Me: Neither Hagrid nor Lupin screwed up in any way to have them need a second chance. Dumbledore didn't give them a second chance, he gave them *a* chance. He kept Hagrid as groundkeeper because he knew (although he couldn't prove) that Hagrid was unjustly expelled. He accepted Lupin as a student in Hogwarts, rather than denying him edcuation because of something that was not his fault in the first place. In the same way, by taking Lupin as a teacher, you might say that Dumbledore is giving him a chance, providing him an opening that most of the WW denies him, but it's not a second chance. Lupin didn't screw up on anything. (Regarding Sirius - my understanding has always been that Dumbledore didn't know of Sirius' part of the Prank (until Sirius confessed in PoA). I don't want to start a Prank discussion either, but on my reading, Sirius is simply irrelevant to this issue.) I'd also like to point out that, during the VW-I Dumbledore probably had many opportunities to assess the trustworthiness of both Hagrid and Lupin (and Sirius). Lupin, we know, is part of the "old gang". And I cannot imagine Hagrid not being involved in some way in the struggle with Voldemort and the DEs. I suggest that if Dumbledore trusts Hagrid "with his life", then he knows what he's talking about. Caroline: Hagrid doesn't seem to have repented. His fascination for "interestin' creatures" still causes danger for students, just like it did, oh, 50 years ago. Me: What on earth does Hagrid have to repent?! His "interestin' creature" didn't hurt anybody, remember? It was the basilisk, controlled by Riddle, that killed Myrtle. Aragog was safely tucked in his closet, a threat to nobody: "So you never - never attacked anyone?" "Never," croaked the old spider. "It would have been my instinct, but from respect of Hagrid, I never harmed a human." (CoS, p. 206) See? Hagrid has nothing to repent. He hasn't failed his second chance, because he never needed to be given a second chance. He has (presumably) carried out his job well enough to earn a promotion. So it seems that Dumbledore was justified in giving him that (first!) chance. Lupin is more tricky, but the bottom line is, he grew up to be a powerful and competent wizard, and an important member of the Light Side. So, in his case also, I think that Dumbledore's chance giving policy was justified. Naama, who doesn't worry about Dumbledore at all From crana at ntlworld.com Fri Jun 21 22:36:21 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 23:36:21 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wand Making - Comment on theories References: <20020621180954.6713.qmail@web14302.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007501c21974$11cc5620$953068d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40177 Ann wrote: "I feel like a caramilk commercial, but. . . how does one get the core into a wand? I always pictured wands as being solid all the way through to the core (the wood having been carved/whittled/whatever the proper term is down into the proper shape by the wand maker in question)." Maybe they are sort of threaded through - I think they are all fairly pliable, the cores? Veela hair.. feather..unicorn tail hair.. etc? And then the end plugged.. which could have fallen out on Ron's. Maybe. Incidentally I really enjoyed reading the long theories just been posted today, especially the Arthur Weasley one.. I don't want to just say "me too!" but I thought it was definitely (for the person who has problems spelling it, the vowels go e i i e if that helps) very interesting and well thought-out. Rosie From plumeski at yahoo.com Sat Jun 22 00:02:42 2002 From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 00:02:42 -0000 Subject: Harry's State of Mind In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40178 My first post in quite a while... "Suzanne Chiles" wrote: > 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. Strnagely enough, I was thinking about this yesterday when somebody asked a question in another forum (the alt.fan.harry-potter newsgroup, if anyone's interested) :-) about the first sentence of the last chapter of GoF, which already gives us an inkling of his frame of mind at the beginning of Book Six. But before I go into that, a small recap. The first three books end for Harry on a high(ish) note, both in terms of individual accomplishments and what he has done for those cares about, whether it's Hogwarts, Gryffindor or the Weasleys. As I've had reason to point out in afh-p in another context, Harry is a team player, and he's always happiest when making other people happy. For him, it's not just important to do something for himself, but for others as well. In the first book, he thwarts Voldy's attempt at returning to power and reveals one of his minions (and wins the House Cup for Gryffindor for the first time in years). In the second, he thwarts Voldemort's younger self (and brings Ginny back). In the third, he fixes an injustice and regains his godfather (and wins the Quidditch Cup for Gryffindor). Indirectly, he loses Ron his useless pet but wins him an (almost) :-) useful one instead. The fourth book ends very differently. He pays the price for having let Wormtail live, and personally witnesses Voldemort's return to power. Whilst he has revealed this return to the wizarding world, this is a hollow victory because other than Dumbledore & Co, nobody believes him. Whilst he wins the Triwizard Tournament for Hogwarts, it's also a hollow victory because he discovers that both he and Cedric benefitted from Crouch-as-Moody's cheating. This is not an honourable win and is thus valueless. He also blames himself for Cedric's death which adds to the hollowness of the win. The only possible silver lining in all of this is that he's done something for the "team", and Gred & Forge aren't penniless, but with a purpose: to keep everyone's spirits up in the dark times to come. Some of his personal relationships have also changed: He now realises that he has to trust Snape, whom he despises; he's lost whatever respect he had for Fudge; Dumbledore, who has thus far been a genial avuncular character, is taking on the role of military campaign organiser; he has a new-found respect for Neville who has a dark past which is only just coming out; even the Weasleys have a role to play in all of this, as Dumbledore is counting on their help - no longer are they his best friend's parents (and his own surrogate mum & dad), but they are active participants in what is to come. Finally, perhaps he's made the same connection fans have and can see some link between his erstwhile baby-sitter the batty Mrs Figg and the mysterious Arabella Figg Dumbledore has sent for. Also, Harry is about to turn 15 - he's no longer a devil-may-care child, looking forward to having "adventures" - he's got a grown-up part to play in a grown-up battle of wits between Good and Evil. Dumbledore is still trying to shield him from that, but he knows that he can't turn his back on everything that's going on. Until now, he's really tried to have a quiet life and refused to accept his role as The Boy Who Lived. His adventures to date haven't been a conscious decision, but a reaction to events conspiring to drag him into things he'd rather not have to face up to. He acknowledges that he has an important role to play in what's coming up, and must prepare for it. We can therefore accept that Harry will start the next book in a VERY different frame of mind and full of apprehension for what's to come, rather than thinking back on his last year with a smile, and looking forward to escaping the Dursleys again. Back to where I started this post: the last chapter of GoF starts with a badly-structured sentence which informs us that a month after the end of the school year (ie around his birthday or the traditional start of the HP books) he's thinking back on the events of that school year, and not remembering much about the last week. "*The worst* [recollection] was meeting the Diggorys" - his feelings of remorse have not subsided in the least. Even Hagrid, one of the most devil-may-care and fatalistic characters in the books, recognises that Harry "isn't OK, but will be." Returning to the Dursleys and the small-time oppression they represent is probably just the tonic Harry needs - by focussing on the little things the Dursleys have against him, he can momentarily forget about the major battles ahead. At the same time, his more adult outlook may just empower him to stand up to Dudley & Co - after all, all the magic in his possession didn't help him save Cedric or prevent Voldemort returning (though he did manage to escape alive). Whilst this could leave him dejected, ultimately I think it'll spur him on to face up the petty tyrannies of the Dursleys. Harry has a great deal of anger and bitterness brewing up inside him. I suspect that it will all come tumbling out to hit the Dursleys at full force and this is going to be the crunch moment both for him and for them. Overcoming that (I don't yet know how) will be the preparation he needs to overcome the disappointments of the last few months and get on with his life. He'll probably escape to the Burrow as usual, and while everyone there is pussy-footing around him, he'll get on with finding out what's going on in the wizarding world, and start planning his *own* strategy (with Ron, of course). This will be the catharsis he needs to get back on track. From skelkins at attbi.com Sat Jun 22 00:31:05 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 00:31:05 -0000 Subject: The Sorting of Neville Longbottom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40179 Apparently, Darrin just can't stand my preferred reading of Neville. Heh. That's okay, Darrin. I've never claimed that it's for everyone. It's a very specialized reading, and few people seem to like it very much. It is, however, perfectly canonically supported. Let me show you. ----- On Neville's Brawl With Crabbe and Goyle Darrin wrote: > What would have happened if Ron and Neville both would have > attacked Draco? Crabbe and Goyle would have turned them into meat > pizza from behind. And what would have happened if neither Ron nor Neville had attacked Draco? Ron is the one who initiates the fist fight in that scene. Ron is the one who ratchets the level of the confrontation up from words to blows. That Neville is willing to help him out once he does so is evidence of loyalty. It is evidence of physical bravery -- the kid is very likely going to get hurt, and he must know that. But then, Peter Pettigrew also displays a great deal of physical courage. As much as he may value his own life, he is willing to take tremendous risks with it (his escape at the end of PoA is proof of this), and he is also willing to get hurt. He's willing to put up with a lot in the way of physical pain. I don't think, though, that any of us would go so far as to call Pettigrew courageous. He's not. He's a coward. While he may not possess much in the way of Proper Wizarding Pride, he does possesses daring and boldness and physical courage -- all of them Gryffindor traits. But morally, he is a coward, and I think that we are meant to understand that in the end, moral courage counts for an awful lot. So are Neville's actions in this scene indicative of true courage? Of *moral* courage? Hard to say for sure, without knowing precisely what was going through his mind at the time. But I must say that I would find it a lot more convincing as evidence of true courage if earlier in that exact same chapter it had not been so very strongly implied that Neville himself considers such behavior the prerequisite to gaining acceptance from his peers. PS, Chapter 13. Neville has already told Hermione that he does not want to report Malfoy to Professor McGonagall because he doesn't "want more trouble." The scene then runs like this: "'You've got to stand up to him, Neville!' said Ron. 'He's used to walking all over people, but that's no reason to lie down in front of him and make it easier.' 'There's no need to tell me I'm not brave enough to be in Gryffindor, Malfoy's already done that,' Neville choked. "'You're worth twelve of Malfoy,' Harry said. 'The Sorting Hat chose you for Gryffindor, didn't it? And where's Malfoy? In stinking Slytherin.' Neville's lips twitched in a weak smile as he unwrapped the Frog. 'Thanks, Harry...I think I'll go to bed...'" That's the canon. Only a few pages later on in the same chapter is when we are treated to Neville first telling Draco "I'm worth twelve of you, Malfoy!" and then, after a moment's hesitation, clambering over the seats to help Ron out with the fist fight that he has provoked. Why does Neville act in such a way in that particular scene, when elsewhere in canon he is consistently depicted as a character who prefers to avoid conflict? Well. It might be in part because he just can't stand to watch Ron get himself pounded to a pulp by Crabbe and Goyle without doing something to try to help him out. Neville is a nice kid, after all. But it also just might have something to do with the fact that only a few pages earlier in the novel, the rest of House Gryffindor has (inadvertantly, I'm sure, and with the very best of intentions) left him with the impression that his own preferred method of dealing with things is unacceptable to them, and that if he wants to earn their approval and be deemed worthy of belonging to House Gryffindor, rather than "stinking Slytherin," he'd better toe the line and start acting the way all the rest of them do. Neville does try to shut them up, doesn't he? He all but comes right out and says: "You know, guys, the way that you're always nagging at me? When it comes right down to it, it's just exactly the sort of thing that Malfoy does." But they just don't get the hint, do they? They're totally oblivious. They just keep at it. The famous Harry Potter himself joins in the fray, and then drops that nice little "stinking Slytherin" in, just to make it perfectly clear to Neville *exactly* what the social punishment for failing to conform to the House's party line entails. Small wonder that he can only muster the very weakest of smiles at Harry's words of "praise." Small wonder that he excuses himself from the conversation rather abruptly, and then just goes off to bed. And indeed, Neville learns his lesson. The *very next time* that we see him anywhere near a Slyth vs. Gryff rumble, he follows orders. He parrots Harry's words verbatim. And then he goes and gets himself into a fist fight. Good Gryffindor. Have a cookie. I do think that Neville is a trooper. But what the text is showing us in this particular chapter isn't courage. It's peer pressure. ----- On Neville's Failed Obstruction of the Trio at the End of PS/SS Darrin wrote: > Wait, I forgot how Neville went from being the victim of Hermione's > body-bind to somehow instigating all of this. Really? You have? Well, okay then. Allow me to refresh your memory. As you will no doubt recall, at this point in the story, all four of our protagonists are getting seriously dumped on by the rest of the House. They're being held responsible for having ruined Gryffindor's chances of gaining the House Cup. They're being ostracized. The House Cup is a seriously big deal to these students. Stupid, but there you have it. Clearly, when it comes to peer approval, there's something even more important than being bold and daring and adventuresome and needlessly violent -- and that's earning the House points. Neville gets this. Boy, does he get it. But it seems like maybe the Trio's been a bit slow on the uptake. So we reach Chapter 16: "'What are you doing?' said a voice from the corner of the room. Neville appeared from behind an armchair, clutching Trevor the toad, who looked as though he'd been making another bid fro freedom." Maybe. Maybe. Or maybe Neville's been hiding there waiting to catch them trying to make another late night foray. Either way, he's there now, and he knows that the Trio is planning something else that might get the House in trouble. Funny, isn't it? These are the same people who only a couple of chapters ago were laying into him for not properly upholding the values of the House! And now they're going to go and lose the House more points, right? Are these guys hypocrites, or what? So Neville tries to point this out to them. He appeals to their sense of House loyalty. They don't get the message. At *all.* They try to lie to him about what they're up to. They tell him that he just doesn't understand. Actually, he *does* understand. They're the ones who are being obtuse here. And they're being hypocritical, as well, because in the past, they have been the ones always urging *him* to abide by the social conventions of the House. They've been nagging him and pressuring about it all year long. And now *they're* telling *him* that he doesn't understand things? They need a more pointed message. Neville has just the thing. "But Neville was clearly steeling himself to do something desperate. "'I won't let you do it,' he said, hurrying to stand in front of the portrait hole. 'I'll--I'll fight you.'" Still no go. Ron tells him to stand aside from the door. He refuses. Not only does he refuse, not only does he object to being called an idiot, not only does he inform them that he really doesn't think very much of their behavior, he also reminds them that he is acting *on their very own instructions!* "'And you were the one who told me to stand up to people!'" Interesting phrasing, isn't it? Not "encouraged me to stand up to people." "*Told* me to stand up to people." In other words, "pushed me around just like you think it's so horrible when Malfoy does it." Neville is giving them a serious critique of their behavior here. He's calling them bullies and hypocrites, and they're just too dense to get it. In fact, Ron just goes on to prove his very point by (a) explaining that he didn't mean that Neville should stand up to *them,* and (b) telling Neville that he doesn't know what he's doing. So Neville takes it one step further. "'Go on then, try and hit me!' said Neville, raising his fists. 'I'm ready!'" In other words, "you guys still just don't *get* it, do you? What am I going to have to do to get through to you people? Force you to hit me, so that you'll feel guilty about it later and maybe actually start to *think* for once in your lives? Well...okay, then. Go ahead. Knock me senseless." And so they do. Yes. Of course Neville instigates it! He is given the opportunity to accept their initial lies about what they are up to, but he doesn't take it. He is given two chances to stand aside, and he doesn't take those, either. Indeed, he just keeps ratcheting up the level of the confrontation. "I'll fight you." "You'll have to hit me." He's *daring* them to attack him. And eventually, they do. Darrin: > It was Neville who in part cost Gryffindor 150 points and he was > trying to make up for it in his own way. I quite agree. And his "way" certainly does make a point, doesn't it? In fact, it does so *exactly* as his "way" of succumbing to peer pressure in Chapter 13 did. > What you're saying is that Neville, consciously or unconsciously -- > and your "know the score" comment would indicate CONSCIOUS > behavior -- has put himself in the way of two larger boys' fists > and submitted to a body-bind from Hermione because it is the easy > way out? It's not the easy way out. It's not a way out at all. In both cases, it is a way of surrendering to social pressures in a manner that seems specifically designed to bring home a point about the values reflected by that social pressure. It's a brave way to cave, to be sure. But it's still caving. > I don't buy it. Hey, I'm not making any money off of this. But if you're going to want to convince me that Neville's behavior is truly courageous, rather than simply passive-aggressive, then you're going to have to show me some evidence that Neville *himself* believes that there is genuine value in duelling in corridors, brawling at Quidditch matches, and investing an enormous degree of emotional energy into the acquisition of a meaningless trophy. I don't see a shred of evidence of that anywhere in the text. Until I see it there, then my reading remains supported whether or not you happen to be in the market for it. > Standing up to Crabbe and Goyle allowed Ron to get some shots in > and score a victory -- petty and juvenile, but a victory -- against > Slytherin. If that's the sort of victory that Neville values so much, then why does he reject Hermione's suggestion that he complain to McGonagall about Malfoy's rule-breaking? Why does he only start defending himself against such attacks once his peers make it clear to him that he is "supposed to" as a member of House Gryffindor? Why does he absent himself from the scene so quickly when it becomes clear that the rest of the House is simply not going to respect his preferred way of dealing with the situation? Why does he later paraphrase this advice as something that Ron "told" him to do, rather than as something that he was "encouraged" or "helped" to do? Why does he give the impression of being *angry* about the fact that the Trio "told" him to do these things, rather than grateful to them for their bolstering? And why is he *never again,* not once in the canon to date, ever seen doing these sorts of things? It does make you wonder. Doesn't it? ----- On The Point Award Darrin wrote: > Standing up to the Trio ended up giving Gryffindor the House Cup > and I'd bet that's EXACTLY why Dumbledore gave it to him, to > encourage the spark of courage. I agree that that's EXACTLY why Dumbledore gave it to him. It's also EXACTLY what Harry and Ron were trying to do for him in the Gryffindor common room back in Chapter 13. But how people intend things and how others wind up interpreting them isn't always precisely the same thing, now, is it? > He's shocked that he is being rewarded here. We're talking about a > kid that doesn't get too many rewards for his behavior. He'd never > won a point for Gryffindor, remember? I remember. He is indeed shocked. Of course he's shocked. He is, in fact, "white with shock." But is he *pleased?* There's no evidence that Neville is at all pleased about this state of affairs. None. > Oh, and I don't see where Harry thinks anything about Neville's > reaction. I've got page 306 right in front of me and there is > nothing about Harry's interpretation of Neville being white with > shock. Are you talking about another of the four books? No, you're right. I was reading implication there. Harry notes that Neville is white with shock, and then immediately moves on to the thought that he had never before won a single point for Gryffindor. I was indeed assuming that Harry's interpretation of Neville's behavior was "shocked and pleased," but you're perfectly correct. It actually says that nowhere in the text. > Well, obviously we have two different world views here. I fail to > see exactly why it turned your stomach. It turned my stomach because it seemed to me that Dumbledore was rewarding Neville for behaving in a manner that (a) I think is far more harmful than beneficial, and (b) Neville himself has, to my mind, shown no particular signs of valuing himself, while in fact showing quite a few signs of *not* valuing himself. It also turned my stomach because the specific *act* of "bravery" and "standing up to ones friends" for which Neville was being lauded there was to my mind (a) far less brave than purely passive- aggressive, and (b) itself a manifestation of Neville's unfortunate tendency to give way to the will of others. I want Neville to get braver, too, you see. I like Courageous! Neville. I think he's got guts, and I'd like to see him get gutsier. But I just can't read his behavior in PS/SS as in the least bit brave. I know that I'm probably "supposed to." I know that other people do. But I don't. I read it as weak-willed. There is hope, however. Nowhere again in canon do we ever see Neville engaging in quite the form of passive-aggressive compliance to social convention that he displays in PS/SS. Nor is he ever again shown getting involved in pointless fist-fights, nor hopping onto the "We Must Win That Cup At Any Cost And It's Therefore Okay To Socially Punish Even Our Own Housemates If They Weaken Our Chances" bandwagon. So you see? In spite of Dumbledore's best efforts, Neville really *is* getting braver. ;-) > Perhaps I am a little too romantic and I enjoyed seeing the picked- > on kid get a little victory in the end. Well, I'm awfully romantic that way too, obviously. If I weren't, then I would hardly feel so annoyed with the idea of Neville getting rewarded for caving to social pressures, would I? I'd just be able to read it as black humour, and then move on. > Nope, I don't believe that. In book 7, Neville gets a heroic scene. > Bank on it. Be there or be square or be depressed - if you must. It's not the idea of Neville getting a heroic scene in Book 7 that depresses me. I'd like nothing better. What depresses me is the idea of Neville getting yet another utterly UNheroic scene that the author wants me to read as heroic, even though it just plain isn't. That's the thought that depresses me. Alas, I suspect that it's precisely what I'm going to get. Although, you never know. JKR can sometimes pleasantly surprise you. She gave me quite a number of thoroughly unexpected and very pleasant surprises in Book Four. So I hold out some hopes. Slim ones. But hopes. -- Elkins From cherryflip at clara.co.uk Sat Jun 22 02:34:55 2002 From: cherryflip at clara.co.uk (Jodi Bailey) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 03:34:55 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Flower names References: Message-ID: <00c801c21995$660c5160$c4ca7ad5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 40180 A few bits and pieces I've found from various sites: ----- Original Message ----- From: "rowen_lm" > > "Both Lily and her sister, Petunia, are named after flowers. The lily > symbolizes purity and innocence. Compare with the petunia, which > symbolizes anger and resentment." > > Hmmm. I also looked on some flower sites. Lily is "return of > happiness" and Petunia is "I am furious!" Very interesting. > Regarding the lily: "A widely held belief regarding this was that it was unlucky to break or damage the plant would threaten happiness, particularly for a man as this action would bring bad luck to the female members of his family resulting in their purity being threatened." ( http://www.mystical-www.co.uk/plantsl.htm ) Also, "Some believe that planting lilies in a garden will protect the garden from ghosts and evil spirits." which I guess would kind of tie in with the protection Harry received from his mother. > > Lavender Brown - I couldn't find any meanings here. Maybe it's just > two colors! lol All I could come up with for this is one mention that lavender represents mistrust. It seems rather odd to me that such a widely used plant doesn't have more symbolism attached to it. > > Poppy Pomfrey - An excerpt for WIAN?: "The poppy is one of the oldest > medicinal plants." and "Her (last) name is most likely derived > from "comfrey", a medicinal plant" The meaning for Poppies > is "pleasure, consolation, wealth, success." The medicinal connection seems most likely, but of course the poppy is most famously a symbol of remembrance. > > Pansy Parkinson - Odd meaning: "thoughts." The word pansy can also > mean a push over. (i.e. "You're such a pansy!") "From the French 'pense' for thought, so-named because the flower resembles a face frowning as if in deep comtemplation." The frown would fit with the description of her having "a face like a pug." > Padma - Another excerpt from WIAN?: "Padma (Ganga) is the Hindu > goddess of the Ganges, India's most sacred river. She is the sister > of the mountain goddess Parvati." It also means lotus, which stands > for "estranged love." > "The Lotus Flower is the symbol of spiritual development. It is the symbol of the manifestation of beauty and mental purity (the ability to rise above) - for although it has its roots in the mud of ponds and lakes, it raises its flower in immaculate beauty above the surface of the water." ( http://www.meandrojewelry.com/mr.html ) Jodi From bard7696 at aol.com Sat Jun 22 02:54:24 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 02:54:24 -0000 Subject: The Sorting of Neville Longbottom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40181 Elkins wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > Apparently, Darrin just can't stand my preferred reading of Neville. > > Heh. That's okay, Darrin. I've never claimed that it's for > everyone. It's a very specialized reading, and few people seem to > like it very much. It is, however, perfectly canonically supported. > Let me show you. > And I write: Lots of things are supported by canon. If there is anything I've learned in my short time here, it's that canon can be bent, folded, and spindled to nearly any point of view. :) > > On Neville's Brawl With Crabbe and Goyle > > > Darrin wrote: > > > What would have happened if Ron and Neville both would have > > attacked Draco? Crabbe and Goyle would have turned them into meat > > pizza from behind. > And Elkins countered: > And what would have happened if neither Ron nor Neville had attacked > Draco? > > Ron is the one who initiates the fist fight in that scene. Ron is the > one who ratchets the level of the confrontation up from words to > blows. > > That Neville is willing to help him out once he does so is evidence > of loyalty. It is evidence of physical bravery -- the kid is very > likely going to get hurt, and he must know that. > > But then, Peter Pettigrew also displays a great deal of physical > courage. As much as he may value his own life, he is willing to take > tremendous risks with it (his escape at the end of PoA is proof of > this), and he is also willing to get hurt. He's willing to put up > with a lot in the way of physical pain. > > I don't think, though, that any of us would go so far as to call > Pettigrew courageous. He's not. He's a coward. While he may not > possess much in the way of Proper Wizarding Pride, he does possesses > daring and boldness and physical courage -- all of them Gryffindor > traits. But morally, he is a coward, and I think that we are meant > to understand that in the end, moral courage counts for an awful lot. > > So are Neville's actions in this scene indicative of true courage? > Of *moral* courage? > > Hard to say for sure, without knowing precisely what was going through > his mind at the time. But I must say that I would find it a lot more > convincing as evidence of true courage if earlier in that exact same > chapter it had not been so very strongly implied that Neville himself > considers such behavior the prerequisite to gaining acceptance from > his peers. > > PS, Chapter 13. Neville has already told Hermione that he does not > want to report Malfoy to Professor McGonagall because he doesn't "want > more trouble." The scene then runs like this: > > > "'You've got to stand up to him, Neville!' said Ron. 'He's used to > walking all over people, but that's no reason to lie down in front > of him and make it easier.' > > 'There's no need to tell me I'm not brave enough to be in Gryffindor, > Malfoy's already done that,' Neville choked. > > yet more peer pressure> > > "'You're worth twelve of Malfoy,' Harry said. 'The Sorting Hat chose > you for Gryffindor, didn't it? And where's Malfoy? In stinking > Slytherin.' > > Neville's lips twitched in a weak smile as he unwrapped the Frog. > > 'Thanks, Harry...I think I'll go to bed...'" > > > > > That's the canon. Only a few pages later on in the same chapter is > when we are treated to Neville first telling Draco "I'm worth twelve > of you, Malfoy!" and then, after a moment's hesitation, clambering > over the seats to help Ron out with the fist fight that he has > provoked. > > Why does Neville act in such a way in that particular scene, when > elsewhere in canon he is consistently depicted as a character who > prefers to avoid conflict? > > Well. It might be in part because he just can't stand to watch Ron > get himself pounded to a pulp by Crabbe and Goyle without doing > something to try to help him out. Neville is a nice kid, after all. > > But it also just might have something to do with the fact that only a > few pages earlier in the novel, the rest of House Gryffindor has > (inadvertantly, I'm sure, and with the very best of intentions) left > him with the impression that his own preferred method of dealing with > things is unacceptable to them, and that if he wants to earn their > approval and be deemed worthy of belonging to House Gryffindor, > rather than "stinking Slytherin," he'd better toe the line and start > acting the way all the rest of them do. > > Neville does try to shut them up, doesn't he? He all but comes right > out and says: "You know, guys, the way that you're always nagging at > me? When it comes right down to it, it's just exactly the sort of > thing that Malfoy does." > > But they just don't get the hint, do they? They're totally > oblivious. They just keep at it. The famous Harry Potter himself > joins in the fray, and then drops that nice little "stinking > Slytherin" in, just to make it perfectly clear to Neville *exactly* > what the social punishment for failing to conform to the House's > party line entails. > > Small wonder that he can only muster the very weakest of smiles at > Harry's words of "praise." Small wonder that he excuses himself from > the conversation rather abruptly, and then just goes off to bed. > > And indeed, Neville learns his lesson. The *very next time* that we > see him anywhere near a Slyth vs. Gryff rumble, he follows orders. > He parrots Harry's words verbatim. And then he goes and gets himself > into a fist fight. > > Good Gryffindor. Have a cookie. > > I do think that Neville is a trooper. But what the text is showing > us in this particular chapter isn't courage. It's peer pressure. > > And I write: I'm quoting everything, as you did me, to ensure that I get all the arguments correctly. Thank you for that courtesy and I hope to match it. The biggest difference between Neville's fighting and Pettigrew's fighting is incredibly simple. Pettigrew had to fight to escape. Neville didn't have to do any such thing. He could have stood there and let Ron get hammered. He could have run for a professor. He could have run for one of the bigger Gryffindors. There were other options besides fighting, and Neville chose to endanger himself rather than take the easy way out. Pettigrew showed survival tactics. Now, if I understand the argument here, what you are saying is the peer pressure essentially left Neville without a choice. Had he run for a professor or a bigger Gryffindor, he wouldn't have done it "the Gryffindor way." OK, and you're reading Harry and Ron's advice to Neville -- stand up for yourself, don't let yourself be bullied -- as putting peer pressure on him. But I think we have to realize that Neville's preferred way of doing things was making him miserable. He obviously doesn't want to be Malfoy's plaything. And my read is that he doesn't want to go to McGonagall because he fears retribution, not because he didn't think it was that big a deal and doesn't want to cause trouble. So, Harry and Ron, being Neville's friend, and yes, selfishly sick of seeing Malfoy get away with yet another prank, encourage Neville to stand up for himself. I refuse to believe that Neville was on the right track without Harry and Ron -- or someone, anyone -- saying this. The kid was going through the Hogwarts equivalent of getting his lunch money stolen and was doing exactly nothing. As a side note, I find it fascinating that Malfoy's insult is "you're not brave enough to be in Gryffindor." Sure, it's probably just Malfoy's clumsy attempt at causing strife, but I think it also says something about how Malfoy views his own courage and which house he landed in. But I also think you're making a huge jump in Neville's reaction when he repeats this insult. "Don't tell me I'm not brave enough...etc." In this case, you take what he says as this: "You know, guys, the way that you're always nagging at > me? When it comes right down to it, it's just exactly the sort of > thing that Malfoy does. First, canon doesn't support, nor to my way of thinking, even imply, prior conversations about this, nor anything close to repeated nagging. Second, I see Neville's comment as not a "shut up and leave me alone" but indeed a cry for help. It's a classic response to an insult. "that person said I'm too fat" and the proper answer is "no, you're not" even if the person weighs 400 pounds. What Harry and Ron did was not give him a robotic platitude, but said that the way to get Malfoy to leave him alone was to stand up to him. Remember, this was in response to Neville saying he didn't want to go to McGonagall. "Stand up to him" could mean lots of different things, INCLUDING going to McGonagall. Moving further through your interpretation of the canon, you take exception with Harry talking about "stinking Slytherin" and say that Harry was basically laying down the law to Neville. Wait a second. Harry despises Slytherin. Hell, most people do. You can make a case that some Slytherin hate themselves. So, stinking Slytherin hardly seems an uncommon thing to say. And by reminding Neville that the sorting hat put him in Gryffindor -- interesting foreshadowing for CoS, when Harry had his own doubts about if he was in the right house -- does Harry not encourage Neville to believe that deep down, he's got what it takes? Neville's "please don't tell me" is screaming that Neville believes it himself and to hear it from Harry and Ron would be what puts him over the edge, and probably out of Hogwarts. And no, an ideal Gryffindor does not stand there like a ninny and let himself get trampled by Slytherin. Neither does a Ravenclaw, nor a Hufflepuff, nor whatever houses they have at Durmstrang and Beauxbatons. NO healthy person stands there and puts up with it. Letting yourself be bullied is not a healthy way to go through life. But Neville is somehow being pressured to conform to Gryffindor? No, I think he's being offered a choice. Stand up for yourself or you'll have to put up with this garbage for the rest of Hogwarts, and incidentally, the rest of your life, because there are plenty of Malfoys in the world. You also take a clue from Neville's weak smile. Of course, when the conversation started, the LAST thing Neville felt like doing was smiling. By the end of the pep-talk, Neville had been weakly smiling. What you are saying is that Neville heard the advice, weighed the advice against his own value system, and gave a weak smile because he realized then he would have to do something against what he wanted to do -- which I'm assuming is something OTHER than being Malfoy's scratching post -- in order to be accepted and was putting on a brave front. Whew... all that from an 11-year-old who's just been humiliated. Finally, all through this, you take Neville's enthusiastic acceptance of Harry and Ron's advice as proof that Harry and Ron pressured him. I dispute the pressure to begin with. Neville indeed parroted Harry's words and later throws them back at them but I do not believe the bridge between "pressure" and "advice" can be supported by that. > > On Neville's Failed Obstruction of the Trio at the End of PS/SS > > > Darrin wrote: > > > Wait, I forgot how Neville went from being the victim of Hermione's > > body-bind to somehow instigating all of this. > Elkins wrote: > Really? You have? Well, okay then. Allow me to refresh your memory. > > As you will no doubt recall, at this point in the story, all four of > our protagonists are getting seriously dumped on by the rest of the > House. They're being held responsible for having ruined Gryffindor's > chances of gaining the House Cup. They're being ostracized. The > House Cup is a seriously big deal to these students. Stupid, but > there you have it. Clearly, when it comes to peer approval, there's > something even more important than being bold and daring and > adventuresome and needlessly violent -- and that's earning the House points. > > Neville gets this. Boy, does he get it. But it seems like maybe the Trio's been a bit slow on the uptake. So we reach Chapter 16: > > "'What are you doing?' said a voice from the corner of the room. > Neville appeared from behind an armchair, clutching Trevor the toad, > who looked as though he'd been making another bid fro freedom." > > Maybe. Maybe. Or maybe Neville's been hiding there waiting to catch them trying to make another late night foray. Either way, he's there now, and he knows that the Trio is planning something else that might get the House in trouble. Funny, isn't it? These are the same people who only a couple of chapters ago were laying into him for not properly upholding the values of the House! And now they're going to go and lose the House more points, right? > > Are these guys hypocrites, or what? > And I interrupt to write: This entire passage I believe I argued against by saying that Neville was not being told "be a better Gryffindor or get the hell out" but by encouraging Neville to stop being a doormat in life. Again, I find it hard to believe that had they been in Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff, the same advice wouldn't be given. And there is a big difference between upholding Gryffindor values and breaking school rules. As Dumbledore correctly points out at the end of the book, Harry's bravery, Hermione's logic under fire, Ron's skill and Neville's courage ALL more than compensate for the fact that they went out at night to do these acts. But moving along, on page 270, Hermione throws up her own objection: "You can't. After what McGonagall and Snape have said. You'll be expelled." "SO WHAT" Harry shouted. "Don't you understand? If Snape gets hold of the Stone, Voldermort's coming back. Haven't you heard what it was like when he was trying to take over? There won't be any Hogwarts to get expelled from! He'll flatten it, or turn it into a school for the Dark Arts! Losing points doesn't matter anymore, can't you see? D'you think he'll leave you and your families alone if Gryffindor wins the house cup?" Hard to argue with that. Unfortunately, among the students, only the Trio know about the Stone and the danger. Neville, like every other Gryffindor, believes the House Cup is the most important thing in their lives. Finding out that something is more important is not being hypocritical. It's contradictory, but you only become a hypocrite if you refer back to the way you were when it suits your needs. If you'll notice in the rest of the books, Harry, Ron and Hermione never really get as worried about the House Cup ever again. Harry and Ron worm their way out of losing points for the flying car in CoS, but that is it. Since they are the three most important student characters, it has followed that the books pay little attention to it. What became a several-page drama in SS/PS is a one- or two-sentence "Gryffindor won again" in CoS and PoA and forgotten due to Cedric's death in GoF. > So Neville tries to point this out to them. He appeals to their > sense of House loyalty. They don't get the message. At *all.* They > try to lie to him about what they're up to. They tell him that he > just doesn't understand. Actually, he *does* understand. They're the ones who are being obtuse here. And they're being hypocritical, as > wel, because in the past, they have been the ones always urging > *him* to abide by the social conventions of the House. They've been > nagging him and pressuring about it all year long. And now *they're* telling *him* that he doesn't understand things? > And I write: No, they weren't nagging him. No, they weren't being hypocritcal. And Neville DIDN'T understand why they were being contradictory. No one else but the Trio did. It's horribly elitist of them, but that is kind of like accusing James Bond of being elitist because he didn't stop to explain to Q how he'd figured out what the bad guy was up to. > They need a more pointed message. Neville has just the thing. > > > "But Neville was clearly steeling himself to do something desperate. > > "'I won't let you do it,' he said, hurrying to stand in front of the > portrait hole. 'I'll--I'll fight you.'" > > > Still no go. Ron tells him to stand aside from the door. He > refuses. Not only does he refuse, not only does he object to being > called an idiot, not only does he inform them that he really doesn't > think very much of their behavior, he also reminds them that he is > acting *on their very own instructions!* > > "'And you were the one who told me to stand up to people!'" > > Interesting phrasing, isn't it? Not "encouraged me to stand up to > people." "*Told* me to stand up to people." In other words, "pushed > me around just like you think it's so horrible when Malfoy does it." > Neville is giving them a serious critique of their behavior here. > He's calling them bullies and hypocrites, and they're just too dense > to get it. In fact, Ron just goes on to prove his very point by (a) > explaining that he didn't mean that Neville should stand up to > *them,* and (b) telling Neville that he doesn't know what he's doing. > and I write: Again, Neville's enthusiastic acceptance of advice doesn't mean Harry and Ron ripped his skull open and forced it down into his brain. And the fact that Neville took to the advice like a calf takes to mother's milk only strengthens my argument that the advice is exactly what Neville needed. And please, let us not give Harry and Ron, two 11-year-olds, so much credit to make the argument that they are being coldly manipulative of Neville, planting seeds of courage in his head so he will become their willing soldier. Obviously, they are befuddled by what they have created. And again, as evidenced by the conversation Harry and Hermione had, they clearly have changed their views on whether or not points really matter all that much. Neville hasn't had this conversion. Of course points are going to be the most important thing to him. He believes he is doing what is best for Gryffindor. The Trio believes they are doing what is best for Gryffindor. As we find out, the Trio is right -- or do you want to contemplate the climax of PS/SS had Harry said: "Jolly good, you're right Neville. We'll go off to bed now." However, Dumbledore takes pains to reward Neville for doing what HE thought was right. Classic win-win. > So Neville takes it one step further. > "'Go on then, try and hit me!' said Neville, raising his fists. 'I'm > ready!'" > > In other words, "you guys still just don't *get* it, do you? What am > I going to have to do to get through to you people? Force you to hit me, so that you'll feel guilty about it later and maybe actually > start to *think* for once in your lives? Well...okay, then. Go > ahead. Knock me senseless." > > And so they do. > > Yes. Of course Neville instigates it! He is given the opportunity > to accept their initial lies about what they are up to, but he > doesn't take it. He is given two chances to stand aside, and he > doesn't take those, either. Indeed, he just keeps ratcheting up the > level of the confrontation. "I'll fight you." "You'll have to hit > me." He's *daring* them to attack him. And eventually, they do. > And I say: Of course, Neville COULD hardly have been dreaming that they would actually "hit" him, let alone use a spell on him. It reads to me like a bluff that the boy holds onto too darn long. And again, Harry and Hermione and Ron HAVE thought this through and have made a calculated risk. Their fault is in not taking the four hours or so it would have taken to explain to Neville what was really going on, convincing him to keep his mouth shut and telling him he couldn't come help. Neville is standing up for what he believes is right. That is what he is supposed to do. Obviously, the smart thing to do would have been to run for Percy the Prefect, but of course we can't have that, because then Harry doesn't get to look into the mirror and get the stone. That's why we can't have it, for plot purposes, not because Neville is trying to prove a point. Sorry to bring the dose of outer-thinking here, but that's what it is. > Darrin: > > > It was Neville who in part cost Gryffindor 150 points and he was > > trying to make up for it in his own way. Elkins writes: > > I quite agree. And his "way" certainly does make a point, doesn't > it? In fact, it does so *exactly* as his "way" of succumbing to peer > pressure in Chapter 13 did. > and I write: Again, his point is dictated by JKR's desire to put a button on Neville without tangling the Trio up too badly on the way to the Stone. Darrin wrote: > > What you're saying is that Neville, consciously or unconsciously - - > > and your "know the score" comment would indicate CONSCIOUS > > behavior -- has put himself in the way of two larger boys' fists > > and submitted to a body-bind from Hermione because it is the easy > > way out? > Elkins writes: > It's not the easy way out. It's not a way out at all. In both > cases, it is a way of surrendering to social pressures in a manner > that seems specifically designed to bring home a point about the > values reflected by that social pressure. > > It's a brave way to cave, to be sure. But it's still caving. > > Darrin writes: Neville just can't win can he? He goes on the way he is going, and he caves into Malfoy every day for the rest of his Hogwarts career, which probably doesn't last past mid-second year before he has a nervous breakdown. But he takes Harry and Ron's advice, and he is caving into social pressures dictating what kind of person he is supposed to be. Again... Neville's way wasn't working. He was a doormat, something Malfoy viewed the way you view a piece of toilet paper. Where you see cruel social pressure, I see encouraging a weaker kid to stand up for himself. > > I don't buy it. > Elkins writes: > Hey, I'm not making any money off of this. But if you're going to > want to convince me that Neville's behavior is truly courageous, > rather than simply passive-aggressive, then you're going to have to > show me some evidence that Neville *himself* believes that there is > genuine value in duelling in corridors, brawling at Quidditch > matches, and investing an enormous degree of emotional energy into > the acquisition of a meaningless trophy. > I write: This is a shadow argument. You state earlier that there is no way to conclusively know what is in his head. I say that canon can be taken a number of ways. All we can do is express our opinions. No evidence exists that Neville believes what you demand to know he believes any more than evidence exists that Neville is passive-aggressive. My opinion is that Neville took the advice. It wasn't pumped in intravenously. As far as the acquisition of a meaningless trophy, really now, EVERYONE in school was going for the trophy, not just Gryffindors. Brawling and dueling, fine, there is room for interpretation, but you are demanding to see evidence that Neville's pursuit of a trophy, WHEN EVERYONE ELSE, INCLUDING TEACHERS, IS GOING FOR THE TROPHY, is because of a flaw in his character? It doesn't exist. But you know that already. I just hope you also know that it's non-existence does nothing to strengthen what you say. > I don't see a shred of evidence of that anywhere in the text. Until > I see it there, then my reading remains supported whether or not you > happen to be in the market for it. > Again, the canon can support numerous things. As we've shown, the same words provoke different reactions. And without knowing what is in Neville's head, which we'll never know, because the character just isn't that damn important, there is no evidence for either side. Just opinion with interpretations of the canon used to support it. > > Standing up to Crabbe and Goyle allowed Ron to get some shots in > > and score a victory -- petty and juvenile, but a victory -- against > > Slytherin. > > If that's the sort of victory that Neville values so much, then why > does he reject Hermione's suggestion that he complain to McGonagall > about Malfoy's rule-breaking? Why does he only start defending > himself against such attacks once his peers make it clear to him that > he is "supposed to" as a member of House Gryffindor? Why does he > absent himself from the scene so quickly when it becomes clear that > the rest of the House is simply not going to respect his preferred > way of dealing with the situation? Why does he later paraphrase > this advice as something that Ron "told" him to do, rather than as > something that he was "encouraged" or "helped" to do? Why does he > give the impression of being *angry* about the fact that the > Trio "told" him to do these things, rather than grateful to them for > their bolstering? I write: Again, he is "supposed to" as a member of the healthy people in this human race, not necessarily Gryffindor. Do you honestly believe that a Ravenclaw, presented the exact same situation, would tell Neville to hide under his bed, jumping in fear whenever Malfoy came along? Or what about a Hufflepuff? And what if he went to a professor? Malfoy would get a detention, maybe lose some points, and then come back twice as worse. And even the professor would know that until Neville stopped it on his own, it would continue. And again, you are making the huge, and in my opinion, erroneous leap that Neville was content, in a resigned to life sort of way, doing what he was doing. "Not making trouble" indicates a fear of retaliation, not a mature desire to be above the fray. Please, he is 11-years-old, and you're giving him credit for being a diplomatic negotiator. > > And why is he *never again,* not once in the canon to date, ever seen > doing these sorts of things? > > It does make you wonder. Doesn't it? > > I write: Well, amazingly enough, he seems to be largely left alone by the Slytherin gang -- excluding Snape, of course -- for the rest of the canon, doesn't he? Perhaps throwing those punches was the right thing to do? > On The Point Award > > > Darrin wrote: > > > Standing up to the Trio ended up giving Gryffindor the House Cup > > and I'd bet that's EXACTLY why Dumbledore gave it to him, to > > encourage the spark of courage. > Elkins wrote: > I agree that that's EXACTLY why Dumbledore gave it to him. It's also > EXACTLY what Harry and Ron were trying to do for him in the > Gryffindor common room back in Chapter 13. But how people intend > things and how others wind up interpreting them isn't always > precisely the same thing, now, is it? > I write: RIGHT! My central argument, turned a bit. Harry and Ron GAVE advice and Neville leaped on it with all he could. But I find all through your argument, Harry and Ron being criticized for pressuring Neville. You seem to believe that Harry and Ron should have known how Neville would react and tempered their advice accordingly so as not to put undue pressure on the lad. And Neville, who chooses to throw punches and challenge the Trio rather than stand up in different ways, has taken the advice to heart in his own way. Elkins writes: > >Quoting me:> He's shocked that he is being rewarded here. We're talking about a kid that doesn't get too many rewards for his behavior. He'd never > > won a point for Gryffindor, remember? > I remember. He is indeed shocked. Of course he's shocked. He is, > in fact, "white with shock." But is he *pleased?* > > There's no evidence that Neville is at all pleased about this state > of affairs. None. > I write: And no evidence he isn't. Remember, he disappeared under the pile of people hugging him. And nothing you have said indicates to me that Neville, the hero of his house and indeed the entire non-Slytherin population of the school, would not be pleased with that kind of attention. You aren't saying that, are you? Me: > > Oh, and I don't see where Harry thinks anything about Neville's > > reaction. I've got page 306 right in front of me and there is > > nothing about Harry's interpretation of Neville being white with > > shock. Are you talking about another of the four books? Elkins: > > No, you're right. I was reading implication there. Harry notes that > Neville is white with shock, and then immediately moves on to the > thought that he had never before won a single point for Gryffindor. > I was indeed assuming that Harry's interpretation of Neville's > behavior was "shocked and pleased," but you're perfectly correct. It > actually says that nowhere in the text. > Me: I hesitate to bring this point up because I feel I have to be misreading what you said. What you say indicates that Harry is the narrator. "Harry notes that Neville is white with shock, and then immediately moves onto the thought that he never before won a single point for Gryffindor" It is a third-person omniscient narrator telling us all this. Harry is not the narrator. I have no doubt that someone who has read the canon as closely as you would make this mistake, so I can only assume your writing is unclear and perhaps missing a word. > > > Well, obviously we have two different world views here. I fail to > > see exactly why it turned your stomach. > > It turned my stomach because it seemed to me that Dumbledore was > rewarding Neville for behaving in a manner that (a) I think is far > more harmful than beneficial, and (b) Neville himself has, to my > mind, shown no particular signs of valuing himself, while in fact > showing quite a few signs of *not* valuing himself. > Again, we're talking about standing up and not being a chew toy. In the long run, that will be more beneficial than harmful. > It also turned my stomach because the specific *act* of "bravery" > and "standing up to ones friends" for which Neville was being lauded > there was to my mind (a) far less brave than purely passive- > aggressive, and (b) itself a manifestation of Neville's unfortunate > tendency to give way to the will of others. > > I want Neville to get braver, too, you see. I like Courageous! > Neville. I think he's got guts, and I'd like to see him get > gutsier. But I just can't read his behavior in PS/SS as in the least > bit brave. I know that I'm probably "supposed to." I know that > other people do. But I don't. I read it as weak-willed. > We do have some classic overcompensation on the part of Neville. My read is that he was at the end of his rope when it came to Malfoy, or else he wouldn't have done something so drastic -- and taken the Trios' advice so enthusiastically. It was like he was Super-Neville there, punching Crabbe and Goyle, racing through the halls trying to find and warn Harry, and standing up to three more superior wizards. I think the general toning down of Neville in the other three books speaks to a leveling-out as far as that goes. > There is hope, however. Nowhere again in canon do we ever see > Neville engaging in quite the form of passive-aggressive compliance > to social convention that he displays in PS/SS. Nor is he ever again > shown getting involved in pointless fist-fights, nor hopping onto the > "We Must Win That Cup At Any Cost And It's Therefore Okay To Socially > Punish Even Our Own Housemates If They Weaken Our Chances" bandwagon. > > So you see? In spite of Dumbledore's best efforts, Neville really > *is* getting braver. ;-) > Nope, I stick by my leveling out theory. I think Malfoy opening cursing Neville without regard for consequences was as low as Neville felt he could go. Had he not stood up the next time he saw Malfoy, he'd have been lost forever, always a meek person who was bullied. BUT... Neville also shouldn't be getting in stupid fistfights, and he doesn't the rest of the way. His courage, as we both agree -- I knew we'd find something -- has manifested itself in better, and more literarily interesting ways -- asking Hermione out, standing up to say 'yes, I lost the passwords', etc. And as I said, no one really cares about the House Cup any longer. I half expect D-Dore to cancel it for the next three years anyway. > > > Perhaps I am a little too romantic and I enjoyed seeing the picked- > > on kid get a little victory in the end. > > Well, I'm awfully romantic that way too, obviously. If I weren't, > then I would hardly feel so annoyed with the idea of Neville getting > rewarded for caving to social pressures, would I? I'd just be able > to read it as black humour, and then move on. > > > > Nope, I don't believe that. In book 7, Neville gets a heroic scene. > > Bank on it. Be there or be square or be depressed - if you must. > > It's not the idea of Neville getting a heroic scene in Book 7 that > depresses me. I'd like nothing better. > > What depresses me is the idea of Neville getting yet another utterly > UNheroic scene that the author wants me to read as heroic, even > though it just plain isn't. That's the thought that depresses me. > Ah, but it is heroic. :) You see caving in. I see a young man taking a brave step out of his shell and being rewarded for it. The cheers of the Gryffindors will fade, but the positive reinforcement Neville will feel from his pleasure -- yes, I think he was smiling under that pile; I'm not sure what you think he was doing -- will stay with him the rest of his life. > Alas, I suspect that it's precisely what I'm going to get. > > Although, you never know. JKR can sometimes pleasantly surprise > you. She gave me quite a number of thoroughly unexpected and very > pleasant surprises in Book Four. So I hold out some hopes. > > Slim ones. But hopes. > Ah, let your hopes be fatter. I do not think you'll be disappointed. This was fun. I hope we can do it again sometime. :) Darrin -- OK, now it's time for a drink ... I wonder what liquor mixes well with pumpkin juice? From chetah27 at hotmail.com Sat Jun 22 04:47:27 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 04:47:27 -0000 Subject: The Quidditch World Cup Match- Major Foreshadowing? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40182 Rosie mused: >From what is building up so far, it *seems* that we are building up to either Voldemort-is-vanquished or Voldemort-triumphs. I can't see it being sort of wishy-washy: do you think it would be like a Quidditch match? "Now Voldemort is in possession - and no, Dumbledore gets the Quaffle" etc? Eventually, someone has to get the golden snitch.> Working off of what you said, about the War in the books being like a Quidditch match...I'm almost forming a bit of a parallel between the QWC match and the War. *goes off and re-reads the chapter from GoF about the QWC* ***Note: All references are GoF, US Edition, Hardback*** Alrighty, then. Let's start off with the teams. I'm pegging the Ireland Team as the Dark Side, and the Bulgarians as the Light Side. I'm not paralleling any one person to another: i.e.- saying Krum and Harry are parallels. Nope, not at all. Just paralleling the Quidditch aspects of certain characters with the some of the War's main soldiers. Now, the Match starts off and it's pretty much back and forth for a bit. Then, the Irish Chaser's sweep in for two goals. At this, people really notice them. Harry is amazed at how efficient they are. Then.. *The match became still faster, but more brutal.* Pg. 107 The Irish Chasers are being paralleled to DE's. The DE's get themselves noticed, and then the Light Side fights back. *Volkov and Vulchanov, the Bulgarian Beaters, were whacking the Bludgers as fiercley as possible at the Irish Chasers, and were starting to prevent them from using some of their best movies; twice they were forced to scatter, and then, finally, Ivanova managed to break through their ranks; dodge the Keeper, Ryan; and score Bulgaria's first goal.* Pg. 107-108 Now. The Irish Chasers are going to be some big shot Death Eater's, very much involved in helping the spread of Voldemort. The rest of the Ireland team(Beaters, Keeper) are Death Eater's. The Blugarian Beater's seem to me to be Aurors. So, the Chasers get alot of trouble from the Beater's and then start breaking through. *One hundred thousand wizard gapsed as the two Seekers, Krum and Lynch, plummeted through the center of the Chasers, so fast that it looked as though they had just jumped from airplanes without parachutes.* Pg. 108 *At the very last second, Viktor Krum pulled out of the dive and spiraled off. Lynch, however, hit the ground with a dull thud that could be heard throughout the stadium.* Pg. 108 Krum is going to parallel to mostly Harry, but also a little bit of Albus Dumbledore, and I can't help but think somene else will be a major hero when all is said and done. Lynch, being the head of the Ireland team, is Voldemort. Yes, yes, I know Krum was faking that move- and I'm not implying that Harry fakes anything(he's an infant, how can he?). But it goes along with the War story line in that Voldemort goes after Harry, Harry gets away, and Voldie crashes and -burns-. *He(Krum) was now circling high above Lynch, who was being revived by mediwizards with cups of potion.* Pg. 109 Hmm...revied...potion...Revival Potion! Ooh... *His(Lynch's) revival seemed to give Ireland new heart. When Mostafa blew his whistle again, the Chasers moved into action with a skill unrivaled by anything Harry had ever seen so far.* Pg. 109 Ooh, that doesn't sound good for Harry and Co. After the Revival, they come back better than before... And(I think this supports the MAGIC DISWASHER theory) but what about Dumbledore slightly paralleling Mostafa? Hmm...Dumbledore the Referee? Dumbledore, by MD, did instigate Voldemort rising and the DE's getting back together and such. *They(Ireland) were now leading by one hundred and thiry points to ten, and the game was startng to get dirtier.* Pg. 109 Oh, drastic measures? As the game goes on, an Irish Chaser gets fouled by the Bulgarian Keeper. Could the Keeper be paralleled to Hagrird? The GroundKEEPER of Hogwarts? Hmm...this means Hagrid plays slightly dirty, and Dumbledore(Mostafa) calls him on it. *Play now reached a level of ferocity beyond anything they had yet seen. The Beaters on both sides were acting without mercy; Volkov and Vulchanov in particular seemed not to care wheather their clubs made contact with Bludger or human as they swung them violently in the air.* Pg. 111 The Good Guys resulting to slightly more violent tactics... Dimitrov(Bulgarian Chaser) fouls Moran(Irish Chaser). Does this mean that a big time Light Sider is going to cause some trouble for a very high ranked DE? Well, as the Match heats up, insaity ensues on the field between the mascots. I'm not sure where to place the mascots. Possibly as the MoM or the general public? Because it does seem likely that awhile after Voldemort rises, the MoM will FINALLY pull it's head out of the sand and all hell will break loose. And so, Krum takes a Bludger full in the face. Does this mean a major blow to Harry/Light Side? And when this happens, the Referee is distracted by the Veela. Will Dumbledore be away when this big blow occurs? Lynch sees the Snitch and makes a desperate dive for it0 but Krum, bleeding and everything, beats him too it. And yet again, Lynch crashes and burns. But he's also overun by a crowd of Veela as soon as he lands. That would be an interesting ending. Harry coming out of nowhere and taking down Voldemort, but the general public is what finishes him off? Hmm... But the Match ends with Ireland winning, even though Bulgarian- through a very brave act- got the Snitch. I wonder what that says about the ending, perhaps being pretty wishy-washy. Even for a Quiddtich Match. =P ~Aldrea, who knows this gets even flimsier the farther you take it, but thinks the paralells with the War in the series so far and the beginning of the Match are interesting to think about. And also, who would polish this up more, but really really has to get sleep now and will be gone for two days...and is stil six pages behind. From Robert.Scott at acxiom.com Sat Jun 22 04:58:49 2002 From: Robert.Scott at acxiom.com (Scott Robert - rscott) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 23:58:49 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Quidditch World Cup Match- Major Foreshad owing? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40183 > From: aldrea279 [mailto:chetah27 at hotmail.com] > > Alrighty, then. Let's start off with the teams. I'm pegging the > Ireland Team as the Dark Side, and the Bulgarians as the Light Side. Umm ... Ireland won, so shouldn't it be the other way around? Wobby Dobby (nervously attempting his first post) From Edblanning at aol.com Sat Jun 22 10:01:10 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 06:01:10 EDT Subject: Fourth Man Seventh Son with Imperius (was: Re: Which Weasley Is Ever So Evil) Message-ID: <12e.133a72da.2a45a4e6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40184 Cindy: > Oh, dear. David, are you *sure* you want to ask that? Are you > *certain?* Because I *know* who these 33 people voted for. Someone > so Evil, so Awful, so Heinous, that it becomes hard for me even to > utter the name. > > So I won't. Not until farther down in this post, anyway. ;-) > > Elkins observed: > > > So is there any evidence in the text that Bill and/or Charlie are > >hip to something about their father and his relationship to the > >past, something that the younger children in the family do not know > >about? > > > > I think that there is. > > > > At the end of _GoF,_ in Chapter 36, when Dumbledore announces his > > intention of sending a letter to Arthur to enlist his help in > > convincing other Ministry officials of the truth of Voldemort's > > return, Bill immediately volunteers to go to him in person. > > > > "'I'll go to Dad,' said Bill, standing up. 'I'll go now.'" > > Uh, oh. > > Elkins got me thinking here, and no good can ever come from that. > Let's consider her evidence about which Weasley may have been placed > under the Imperius Curse when Voldemort first came to power. > > Elkins: > > > > It's touching, that, but it is also really very suggestive. Why > > precisely *is* Bill so concerned about Arthur's feelings when it > > comes to this topic? > > > > I think that Arthur was an Imperius victim, and that Bill knows it. > > Well, maybe. Maybe. But don't you think it is *far* more likely > that *Bill* was an Imperius Victim during Voldemort's first campaign? > > OK, how about another twist. I've had this one on the back burner for some time, because even for a seasoned hedgehog-hunter it does seem a little far-fetched. It does, however, have the advantage of tying up several strands into one neat package. Many people have tried to make Ron a seventh son, by proposing that there is a missing (presumably dead) Weasley son. Most people, seeing a gap, like to place him between Charlie and Percy, but I'd like to propose that he was actually their *first-born*. Now, according to the Lexicon, there's only a five-year age gap between Charlie and Snape and the Marauders, so say three years for Bill, so the eldest could be either contemporary with them, or a year younger. Now, Cindy, you won't like this, because it challenges the identity of your boy Avery, but what if this eldest brother was in fact the notorious Fourth Man? *There* would be a huge Bangy Weasley secret. And of course, Bill and Charlie would probably know about it. But the younger ones wouldn't. They'd be protected. Ron *would* think he was only the sixth to go to Hogwarts because he doesn't know he has/had another brother. What's that, Fourth Man doesn't have red hair, you say? Well, JKR, who seems fair obsessed with red hair doesn't mention it, it's true. But then if you were so easily identifiable by a physical characteristic, wouldn't you do something about your appearance? And why doesn't everyone know, you ask? Look, no-one at that school knows *anything* relevant to the last Voldemort war, do they? They're all in a terrible state of ignorance. Ron doesn't even know what the Dark Mark is and even if his parents were protecting him, you'd think he'd have picked it up at school if it was common knowledge. So who was under Imperius? Eldest son (who either died in Azkaban, or is exiled somewhere to protect the family name)? Or Arthur, who was Imperio'd by said eldest son. Oh, and for those who like such things...... do we *know* that Avery is a surname? Avery, Bill, Charlie...... So there you have it, the Fourth Man Seventh Son with Imperius combo. So wildly improbable it has to be true. Or not. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pen at pensnest.co.uk Fri Jun 21 10:05:52 2002 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 11:05:52 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] "Malfoy Is Mabel" and Genre Expectation (WAS: Names) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40185 Elkins wrote: >Hee. Oh, yes. I remember these. I found them bizarrely fascinating >as a child. They were just so utterly alien to my life. Like >reading about classical Athens, you know. Or Middle Earth. Or >perhaps (given that I always thought those Jolly Good Schools sounded >downright dystopian -- as, for that matter, I do Hogwarts) more like >tales from the Gulag. Heh. I went to boarding school (and enjoyed it very much), but despite the midnight feasts, reality bore no resemblence to the stories... as I assured a daygirl friend when she was contemplating the possibility of becoming a boarder. (Alas that I was so vehement about this, I put her off and she moved to another school instead.) And it seems to me that Hogwarts is distinctly lacking many things that are necessary to the running of a boarding school. Even a magical one should have rules about bedtime! >But indeed, that was precisely how they >always worked. The "Rescue and Redeem" scenario was always the order >of the day in the boarding school story. > >Genre precedent here, of course, suggests that Draco Malfoy may well >have a life-debt to Harry Potter looming menacingly in his future. >This possibility has also been strongly suggested by fact that the >text has been encouraging the reader to draw parallels between Harry- >Draco and James-Snape ever since the end of the very first book. Yup. We even have the Hot-Headed But Loyal Best Friend to be the unintentional cause of the trouble. Despite the Mabel analogy, I very much hope JKR won't follow this course, probably because it will seem too well-worn to me if she does, wot wiv having read all those School stories. I'd rather see Draco remain an unredeemed worm, personally, or discover that he hasn't the courage to become Openly Evil. >It's always tricky dealing with genre precedent with the HP books, >though, because the series is such an utter genre soup. >But back to Malfoy As Mabel (or Veronica), I do find it reasonably >likely that JKR might eventually smack Draco with a life-debt. It's >been amply foreshadowed, and there is strong genre precedent. It does >seem a bit less likely to me post-POA, though. After all, how many >times can JKR really plan on pulling that whole life-debt schtick? Yup, that's another reason I hope Draco won't be a complete Mabel. Or Veronica. Pen From pen at pensnest.co.uk Fri Jun 21 10:40:12 2002 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 11:40:12 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sexuality in HP/Wizard longevity and Harry's pubescence In-Reply-To: <3D123C45.E1FA002F@yaoigoddess.com> References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40186 >jenny_ravenclaw wrote: >> 1)From the "easily ignored" category, we have the thing that Harry >> would "sorely miss" [p.463] which, of course, turned out to be Ron >> [p.498] Granted, this is innocent enough; Harry IS ron's closest >> friend. But especially when given the fact that two of the other >> three competitors had to rescue their girlfriends/dance dates (Krum >> had to save Hermione; Cedric had to save Cho), the homoerotic subtext >> here isn't that hard to find. We-e-e-ll, you can find it, if you want to. That being the crucial point. It does definitely belong in that 'easily ignored' category. After all, the two who had to rescue their girls were both quite a bit older than Harry, and might reasonably be expected to be making good progress along the path to sexual maturity. Harry, at fourteen, was just getting to the point of Noticing A Girl, but hadn't managed to do anything about it. Just how important could Cho have been to him, when the only conversation he seems to have had with her was the abortive attempt to ask her to go to the ball with him? Ron, by contrast, is the first friend he ever made, and Harry has already learned how important Ron is, through the experience of missing him while they were estranged. Different flavour of love. I think this connects with Ginny's point about Harry and the gang seeming to reach adolescence at a slower pace than we might expect. Is it really possible to define the age at which teenagers become interested in sex? Or, hmm, at which they resolve their general prurience and liking for Rude Jokes into a specific interest in an individual of the appreciated gender? I have seen in my 15-year-old daughter some general giggling over boys, plus distinct appreciation of the "Phwoar!" kind applied to such notables as, say, 'Connor', from 'Angel'. No one-to-one dates, though. But one of the girls in her class in engaged, and some of her year have undoubtedly had sex by now. My son, just thirteen, is aware of girls only as a tiresome nuisance. He and his best friend are infinitely more interested in computer games. In a year and a half... who can say? But I doubt that a crush-object would be more important than the best friend. On the above basis, Harry and Ron and Hermione seem pretty normal to me. Pen From meboriqua at aol.com Sat Jun 22 13:17:46 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 13:17:46 -0000 Subject: Hagrid the Betrayer/ Hagrid, the one who can't handle his job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40187 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naamagatus" wrote: > Anti-Hagrids are often bothered by the Buckbeak incident, but what really happened was that Draco received a flesh wound that was healed within a few minutes. The incident was blown out of proportions because Draco malingered - lying in order to to get Hagrid fired. In Hogwarts, it is the norm for studnets to deal with dangerous creatures and substances. Students are forever getting hurt in lessons (especially in potions, BTW. Does that mean that Snape is *incompetent*?! ;-P) Hagrid gave the students the proper warning as to how to approach and deal with Hyppogriffs. It's not his fault that Draco did not heed that warning.> *Sigh* It is not what Draco did that bothers me. Draco was a terrible student who absolutely deserved what he got because he specifically did *not* listen to Hagrid's directions. What made me angry about the incident was the way Hagrid handled it afterwards. Because *one* student was a git, Hagrid was completely thrown off for the rest of the year. I can understand if he was shaken up for a few weeks or so, but the only thing Hagrid had his students do for the rest of the year (a good ten months we're talking) is feed Flobberworms, which appears to be something that doesn't even need to be taught. He was in no way a teacher. He should have been removed from his position, or at least he should have had the sense to leave it himself. About Hagrid's childishness again - if it is part of his giant blood (which is an idea that I don't like) that he's emotional and simple minded, then he sure as hell shouldn't be trusted with important errands and responsibilities. Maybe Dumbledore is somehwhat responsible here; Hagrid's constant desire for dragons should be more closely monitored. He is clearly blinded when it comes to creatures of the big, hairy and dangerous variety. It's almost like a drug he is addicted to, and doesn't seem to want to control. Remember how he completely ignored the rules of the Triwizard Tournament and showed Harry the dragons? Hagrid stood in a daze, not even noticing if Harry was still nearby. My last comment is related to people (not just you, Naama!) that Hagrid is a friend to Harry. I'm sorry, but he is not supposed to be Harry's friend. I am there for my students and I've listened to many a sob story, have given advice and have laughed with my students many times. They even know a bit about my life - but I DO NOT cry to them or expect them to help me if I make a mistake. I don't tell them when I am having problems at home and I don't expect them to pick me up when I am down. In fact, they never know if I am dealing with somethig outside of school because I keep that to myself. I don't care what position Hagrid has at Hogwarts; he should not EVER have Harry and Co. helping him out and sneaking around in the middle of the night when he messes up. Hagrid needs to learn how to take better care of himself. --jenny from ravenclaw *** From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Jun 22 13:46:51 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 13:46:51 -0000 Subject: TBAY: HP and the Superfluous Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40188 Utilizing a handy time turner, Pippin reappears on the deck of the as yet unnamed barge, slightly before she left. She pushes her previous self overboard, ignoring all paradox issues thus raised in the tradition of JKR herself. > "Unhand that can(n)on, foul knaves!" shouts Dicentra. "That can(n)on is mine by right. I have won it by the power of mine own sword in goodly battle." > > "I doubt that," says Pippin, eyeing Dicentra carefully and backing away slowly. "You've not found a superfluous scene but an extremely*subtle* scene. Look, it's Crookshanks' first Sirius-directed effort to nab Pettigrew. We don't know that on first reading, though Rowling helpfully offers us a hint: 'mangy cur!'" > > Dicentra pulls her waterproof copy of PoA out of her robes and turns to page 364 of the Scholastic Edition. "I don't think you can assert *when* Sirius and Crookshanks began to collaborate. . > > "See? There is no timeframe given as to when they began to work together. Sirius doesn't say that he first tried to get in, then he got the cat to help him. You can assume that if you want, but the text doesn't support it. << Pippin whips out her own hardcover and does a quick check for dates: 10/15 Crookshanks attacks Ron's bag. Ron and Hermione argue about it. 10/31 Saturday morning. Ron and Hermione make up their spat over Crookshanks. 10/31 evening. Attack on the Fat Lady 11/6 Saturday Harry stops Crookshanks and reckons Ron is right about him. "Hah! It doesn't seem likely to me that Ron and Hermione would have made up their dispute or that Harry would have made his remark if Crookshanks had been trying to get at Scabbers all that time." Pippin and Debbie hoist the cannon triumphantly overboard, but Dicentra makes a last ditch effort to save it. Dicentra: >>Frankly, the timing in this is all screwed up anyway: Sirius goes after Scabbers for the second time *after* Scabbers fakes his own death. Sirius knew it was a faked death, so why go looking in Ron's bed for him? This smells suspiciously like a FLINT to me. But this barge don't collect FLINTS, it collects... um... superfluity."<< Pippin counters: "Sirius attacks *because* he knows it's a fake death. At that point Scabbers was probably still in Gryffindor Tower, perhaps even still in Ron's dorm room. Crookshanks would know. Sirius may have been trying to panic Pettigrew into showing himself. Or maybe Sirius is just plain gonzo. Manic!Depressive Sirius, anybody?" Dicentra rolls her eyes. Pippin just can't seem to stop bad mouthing perfectly good characters. Mrs. Figg. Lupin. Sirius. Is there no end? Dicentra shoos them away from the can(n)on. "This baby is staying right where it is, ladies. Right next to the *wholechapter* of GoF that Cindy gave me. < Undismayed, Pippin summons the ELVIRA lifeboat. She and Debbie heft the can(n)on into the ELVIRA lifeboat with the help of the refugee Snape theories. Pippin notes that the bay is getting crowded. There used to be just SHIPS, but now there are hedgehogs, flamingos, featherboas, numerous dioramas, and for some reason, a kitchen appliance. Pippin is still rolling her eyes at Dicentra: Oh dear. That is not a superfluous chapter. How could we be touched by the bereaved Diggorys if we hadn't met them in happier days? Not amid the hurly burly of the world cup, but in a quiet moment while the wizarding world was still at peace? And don't we have to remind everyone that Cedric is the rival Seeker who actually beat Harry at Quidditch? And that hike to the portkey, well, JKR has to show us how portkeys work, doesn't she? Yes, says Dicentra, but why have everybody take this long walk up a hill when it's not even light yet? Pippin stammers and mumbles, but then she's inspired by Debbie's brilliant analysis of Snape's remark about the cauldron full of potion in message #40141. With a sigh of relief, Pippin continues: This is basic garden variety Flint-proofing, this is. We are given to understand that the MOM is in charge of portkeys, and for some reason known only to itself, makes it massively inconvenient for the average wizard to use them. Otherwise we would be asking questions which are downright prehistoric in respect of having flinty points, like, 'Why don't the Weasleys just portkey to Kings Cross instead of having to hire all those taxis. Come to think of it, why doesn't everyone? Why do they have to take the train at all?' etc. Pleased with their work, Pippin and Debbie load another can(n)on onto the ELVIRA. Dicentra is understandably upset. But Pippin whips out her trusty can of white paint and carefully labels the now can(n)onless but no longer nameless barge: G.A.R.B.A.G.E.S.C.O.W.--Gibberish, Altogether Redundant Blather And Gobbledegook Everywhere! Superfluous Can(n)on Obtains Welcome Pippin who thinks an entire cauldronful should hold more than a mere seven cups worth of potion, but concedes she has no support for this other than the dictionary definition of a cauldron: " a large kettle or boiler." Less than two quarts is not large, in her opinion. From Erikzamora at hotmail.com Sat Jun 22 11:13:49 2002 From: Erikzamora at hotmail.com (eriktz) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 11:13:49 -0000 Subject: Voldemort a Gryffindor? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40189 I jsut got done REreading Chamber of Secrets and something occured to me as I read the intense scene in the chamber. Voldemort is giving a description of what the teachers thought of him: "Tom Riddle, poor but brilliant, parentless but so BRAVE, school prefect, model student..." (CoS pg311 US Soft Cover) Emphasis on "brave" is not my own. That's I think may be a clue that Riddle wasn't a Slytherin, but a Griffindor. Even later on when Harry is talking to Dumbledore (pg 332) about what house he should be in, Dumbledore never says anything about Voldemort being in Slytherin. I don't remember reading anywhere that specifically says Riddle was in Slytherin. If it is in there, please correct me. If it isn't in there I won't be suprised to later find out that Voldemort was in Gryffindor. Anywone else have thoughts on this? erik From crana at ntlworld.com Sat Jun 22 13:14:42 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 14:14:42 +0100 Subject: Sexuality in HP References: Message-ID: <000b01c219ee$c647cba0$683668d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40190 >jenny_ravenclaw wrote: >> 1)From the "easily ignored" category, we have the thing that Harry >> would "sorely miss" [p.463] which, of course, turned out to be Ron >> [p.498] Granted, this is innocent enough; Harry IS ron's closest >> friend. But especially when given the fact that two of the other >> three competitors had to rescue their girlfriends/dance dates (Krum >> had to save Hermione; Cedric had to save Cho), the homoerotic subtext >> here isn't that hard to find. And Pen wrote: "After all, the two who had to rescue their girls were both quite a bit older than Harry, and might reasonably be expected to be making good progress along the path to sexual maturity. Harry, at fourteen, was just getting to the point of Noticing A Girl, but hadn't managed to do anything about it. Just how important could Cho have been to him, when the only conversation he seems to have had with her was the abortive attempt to ask her to go to the ball with him? Ron, by contrast, is the first friend he ever made, and Harry has already learned how important Ron is, through the experience of missing him while they were estranged. Different flavour of love." Another interesting point is that Fleur's hostage was her sister. By the logic that since Harry rescued Ron he must be gay, Fleur's family life is infinitely more disturbed. Isn't one of the "points" being made here that love can come in many different forms, e.g. romantic love, sibling love, friend love? "rosie" [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From crana at ntlworld.com Sat Jun 22 13:29:30 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 14:29:30 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid the Betrayer/ Hagrid, the one who can't handle his job References: Message-ID: <001101c219f0$d7427f20$683668d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40191 Jenny said: "I can understand if he was shaken up for a few weeks or so, but the only thing Hagrid had his students do for the rest of the year (a good ten months we're talking) is feed Flobberworms, which appears to be something that doesn't even need to be taught. He was in no way a teacher. He should have been removed from his position, or at least he should have had the sense to leave it himself. My last comment is related to people (not just you, Naama!) that Hagrid is a friend to Harry. I'm sorry, but he is not supposed to be Harry's friend. I am there for my students and I've listened to many a sob story, have given advice and have laughed with my students many times. They even know a bit about my life - but I DO NOT cry to them or expect them to help me if I make a mistake. I don't tell them when I am having problems at home and I don't expect them to pick me up when I am down. In fact, they never know if I am dealing with somethig outside of school because I keep that to myself. I don't care what position Hagrid has at Hogwarts; he should not EVER have Harry and Co. helping him out and sneaking around in the middle of the night when he messes up. Hagrid needs to learn how to take better care of himself." I think your points based on being a real-life teacher are very sensible, but I think we have to remember that this is a magical school. The ways things work are a bit different to real life, and real life itself is again different to how we would sometimes prefer it to be. As far as I remember, Hagrid was *told* to teach the students about flobberworms. You are probably justified in saying that Dumbledore shouldn't put Hagrid in the position he is in, but it wasn't Hagrid who *asked* to be made a teacher. He has tried to make the best of this job he has been given - we are told how much effort he put into the first lesson - and he really isn't receiving any sort of support as far as I can see. He's had, what, 2 or 3 years of education, for reasons that were not his fault (perhaps that's why many people see Hagrid's character as childish: he has missed out on all that education, and the accompanying things like social skills, that his peers have had. I can't imagine that Young!Hagrid, having been expelled and therefore seen as the person responsible for *a student's death* is going to have had a fantastic social life or lots of friends. He can't quit his job and just leave Dumbledore in the lurch. Yes, there was Prof Grubbly-Plank, but if she was so good... why wasn't she asked to stay on? Perhaps she was only filling in as a favour to D-dore, maybe they can't *get* another Care of Magical Creatures teacher (we know they have had lots of problems with recruiting DADA teachers). I also agree Hagrid shouldn't, as a teacher, behave the way he does.. but look at it. Before he was made a teacher, he had become friends with HRH. He's an important source of support to them (e.g. Hermione when she falls out with the other two). He can't just emotionally cut himself off like that, and I don't see it as that important that he should. D-dore (as I think it says in canon *somewhere*) thinks you thinks in some very different ways, which is why eg Harry must return to the Dursleys (one of the reasons, at any rate). I reckon Dumbledore thinks the kids are learning more from having Hagrid as a teacher than they would without him. I totally agree with you that he isn't very good at his job, but it's not really a role he is suited for, and he didn't ask for it! Don't blame Hagrid for being a bit of a useless teacher, it's not his fault; Dumbledore, I think, knows what he's doing, in just the same way that even though they detest Potions, the Gryffindors learn *other* things from the lessons with Snape, for example that life isn't always fair, and that favouritism does exist, etc, etc. Rosie, who thinks Jenny would probably make a much better teacher than Hagrid, but can't dislike Hagrid nonetheless. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rowen_lm at yahoo.com Sat Jun 22 15:01:06 2002 From: rowen_lm at yahoo.com (rowen_lm) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 15:01:06 -0000 Subject: The Quidditch World Cup Match- Major Foreshadowing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40192 Aldrea wrote: <> And Wobby Dobby asked: <> Perhaps this is indicating that the end of the books will not involve complete resolution of the good vs. evil battle. The dark side (I just went to Star Wars II, so that sounds wierd) will appear to be winning at the end of the series. BUT, paralleling Krum's snitch capture, the light side will obtain a key victory which will make the ongoing fight . . . what's the word I'm looking for? Not easier, but erm, more hopeful perhaps. Kind of like the light in Dumbledore's eyes at the end of GoF. Even thought the dark side has achieved victory, Dumbledore sees something which may tilt the balance in their favor. Rowen Avalon From sarahlegend at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jun 22 15:06:05 2002 From: sarahlegend at yahoo.co.uk (sarahlegend) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 15:06:05 -0000 Subject: The vaults at Gringotts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40193 Hey everyone! I've been lurking around HP4GU for a while and love the great discussions that go on here - they really help me to get even more out of the great HP books. Anyway, a contribution of my own to the discussions of "foreshadowings" JKR is so good at weaving into the stories... (UK ed. of PS p57) - "An' I've also got a letter here from Professor Dumbledore," said Hagrid importantly, throwing out his chest. "It's about the You-Know_what in vault seven hundred and thirteen". (and from the UK ed. of POA p315 - Sirius Black's note to Harry delivered to the Hogwarts Express to explain about the Firebolt... ) - "I used your name but told them to take the gold from Gringott's vault number seven hundred and eleven - my own". So... (1) Why did Black bother to mention what his vault number was (unless he was being such a kind godfather as to give Harry access to his wealth if Harry needs it)? (2) How come Dumbledore or Hogwarts itself has a mega-high security vault just one door (if the Gringott's tunnels use the 'odd numbers one side even numbers the other' system) or two doors away from that of a convicted murderer and Azkaban prisoner? and (3) - WHat the heck is in vault number seven hundred and twelve? Sarah xx From rowen_lm at yahoo.com Sat Jun 22 15:44:48 2002 From: rowen_lm at yahoo.com (rowen_lm) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 15:44:48 -0000 Subject: ( TBAY): HP and the Superfluous Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40194 Cindy wrote: >>"Now that you mention it," says the Captain thoughtfully, "JKR does do that. She does that *a lot,* doesn't she? She sneaks in some *filler* on us when we least expect it. And I can *prove* it!"<< >>"There's more?" Dicentra asks in disbelief.<< >>"Oh yeah," the Captain says, reaching for her pocket version of Goblet of Fire, Cliffnotes Edition. "Have a look at Chapter Six, 'The Portkey':<< <> >>The Captain nods, smiling broadly at her success. "So that's pretty darn superfluous, and it's not just part of a chapter; it's a *whole chapter!* An entire *superfluous* chapter!"<< Rowen REALLY has to disagree with this. I think that chapter has some key points. Novels are not to be written like encyclopedias, packing the most possible info into the least possible space. The number one purpose of books (IMNSHO) is to tell a story. It's an art, not a science. It's supposed to be enjoyable and asthetically pleasing. This chapter not only contains several bits of foreshadowing and information, but is an enjoyable read because of the humorous Weasleys. :) Summary of Reasons for The Portkey: 1. Explains more about apparating. More facts about JKR's world for us. It makes her world seem more real because it relates apparating to getting a driver's licence. People failing tests, newly licenced people doing it constantly just because. 2. More about F & G's joke shop. There has to be more about it in the book before Harry can make a big point of giving them money to open it at the end. And there's no Mrs. Weasley to stop them from doing jokes at Hogwarts, so this is basically the only place to convey Mrs. Weasley's disaproval. It also shows her disappointment with F & G for their not-as-good-as-Percy grades. 3. Explaination of Portkeys, the QWC and anti-muggle precautions. Again making her world more believable. It gives us reasons we haven't already found out about it. 4. Reminder of a semi-rivalry between Cedric and Harry. I think this is plenty of info for one chapter that's only, what, nine pages long in US hardback. As for having the information included in other chapters, why not in this chapter. It would be a little late for JKR to be explaining about portkeys AFTER they used one. It would be like the Weasleys and Harry using Floo Powder first and explaining how it worked after retreving Harry from Knockturn Alley. It doesn't fit in a logical sequence of events. Like I said in #2 in above list, it's the only time it makes sense to include Molly's disapproval of the twins. It makes her character more real. A book is not just a series of facts, it's a story. The facts have to be revealed in a not-obvious way. It's really tacky in writing to describe your characters in long paragraphs outside of dialogue or action. Details should be given while the action is moving. If JRK had summarized this chapter into a paragraph before the next chapter going something like: "Harry, Hermione and the Weasleys woke up the next morning to head to the QWC. Percy, Charlie and Bill were apparating in later (which, by the way, requires a licence. Did you hear the one about the wizards who splinched themselves?) but the rest of them had to walk up a hill to touch this thing called a portkey. Mr. Weasley had explained that a Portkey . . . etc." REALLY TACKY. This is not the way JKR writes her books. IT's better to have your characters find out information (and thus, your readers) than talk directly to your reader. I don't really know how to explain why this is extremely faux-paux in writing. I can't come up with a word for it. If someone who is more articulate than me could explain it better, please do so. Anyway, I believe this chapter is very necessary. La de dah. Rowen From yaoifreak14 at yahoo.de Sat Jun 22 12:42:40 2002 From: yaoifreak14 at yahoo.de (yaoifreak14 at yahoo.de) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 14:42:40 +0200 (CEST) Subject: The female founders and Latin Message-ID: <20020622124240.4450.qmail@web13008.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40195 Hello, my name is Tessy and I am new on this list. I scanned a few messages and the various FAQs on the web site, but I couldn't find the answer to my question. I have spent the last few days thinking about the four founders, particularly about the two women Rowena and Helga. My first question is: Is there anything stated, when Hogwarts was founded? I assumed that it was somewhere around 100 AD or something. But going by this date, I wonder how it was possible for Helga and Rowena to learn Latin, since this is the language needed for the various spells. I assume that the magical community was mixed with the non-magicals in that time, since magic was associated with the gods in pre-Christanity ages. Women had a high status in the celtic culture and most of the religious figures were females. But assuming this would lead to the fact that the celts detested the christians (save for the friars because there the two religions mixed) and would not want to learn their languages. So how did Helga and Rowena learn Latin? Regards, Tessy __________________________________________________________________ Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de Yahoo! prsentiert als offizieller Sponsor das Fuball-Highlight des Jahres: - http://www.FIFAworldcup.com From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat Jun 22 17:06:58 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 17:06:58 -0000 Subject: The female founders and Latin In-Reply-To: <20020622124240.4450.qmail@web13008.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40196 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., yaoifreak14 at y... wrote: > Hello, my name is Tessy and I am new on this list. I > scanned a few messages and the various FAQs on the > web site, but I couldn't find the answer to my question. > Hi Tessy! > I have spent the last few days thinking about the four > founders, particularly about the two women Rowena and > Helga. My first question is: Is there anything > stated, when Hogwarts was founded? I assumed that it was > somewhere around 100 AD or something. In CoS p. 114 Ch. 9 (UK paperback) Professor Binns tells the students that Hogwarts was founded 'over a thousand years ago - the precise date is uncertain.' So that would place it 10th or 11th Century, not 1st or 2nd. There may be a joke here for English readers, who traditionally start history with general stuff about the Egyptians, the Romans, and for some reason only known to history teachers, the three-field system of agriculture. We only start actual 'dates' with the Norman Invasion of England - 1066. 1066 is practically the only date the average English non-history-specialist is at all certain of. :-) >So how did Helga and Rowena learn Latin? [Snip about 1st Century] Still pretty unusual for women in the 10th and 11th Century, but not unknown. Latin speaking women tended to be nuns, and some of their writings have survived to this day - as witches were also an 'educated' class, they would have had to learn the language of international scholarship - Latin. Pip (who would like to salute the 10th Century nun Hroswitha of Gandersheim, first known woman playwright, who wrote in Latin, and would probably have got on very well with Rowena Ravenclaw and Helga Hufflepuff) From suzchiles at pobox.com Sat Jun 22 17:28:49 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 10:28:49 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The female founders and Latin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40197 In her very interesting post, Pip said: > > Still pretty unusual for women in the 10th and 11th Century, but not > unknown. Latin speaking women tended to be nuns, and some of their > writings have survived to this day - as witches were also > an 'educated' class, they would have had to learn the language of > international scholarship - Latin. > But would this apply to witches and wizards? I would have assumed that Hula and Rowena, like all wizards and witches, had some training from family members or magical friends, which could very well have included something like "Latin for Magical Folk". Or do we think that magical folk in the dark ages had connections with the church? Zo From danellegirl56 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 22 16:50:44 2002 From: danellegirl56 at yahoo.com (danellegirl56) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 16:50:44 -0000 Subject: A question about Sirius Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40198 At the end of GoF, when Dumbledore sends Sirius off on his mission to contact the "old crowd", I'm wondering how exactly he's going to do this. I mean, most of the world still thinks he's a dangerous criminal. Lupin didn't even know, so why would people who (presumedly) had less contact with the Potters know? I wondered if perhaps Dumbledore had informed them, but if Dumbledore has means of communication, why would he need Sirius to go get them? Any ideas? By the way, this is my first foray into the posting world. Snickerdoodle. From temporary_blue at yahoo.ca Sat Jun 22 17:12:12 2002 From: temporary_blue at yahoo.ca (temporary_blue at yahoo.ca) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 13:12:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Wand Making In-Reply-To: <1024733796.2268.69329.m6@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020622171212.21505.qmail@web14303.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40199 "Felicia Rickmann" said: >>What's a caramilk commercial??<< Caramilk is a chocolate bar. The commercials always have people wondering "how do they get the creamy center into a caramilk bar?" >>Wands are made by experts like Olivanders who, I suspect use magical means to seal a wand once it has been * created * once the central core has been selected.<< So. . . Ollivander just waves his own wand and *poof* the core has been inserted into solid wood? I wonder how much specialized training wizards get? Wand making sounds quite artistic, very few wizards in the business. Do wizards learn everything they need while at Hogwarts? Is that basic level of magic enough to do all the various things we've seen adult wizards doing (as a profession)? Ann ______________________________________________________________________ Post your ad for free now! http://personals.yahoo.ca From cureluv88 at hotmail.com Sat Jun 22 18:02:15 2002 From: cureluv88 at hotmail.com (lizbot1981) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 18:02:15 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's death Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40200 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" From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat Jun 22 19:11:36 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 19:11:36 -0000 Subject: The female founders and Latin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40201 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Suzanne Chiles" wrote: Pip said: > they would have had to learn the language of > > international scholarship - Latin. > > > Zoe replied: > But would this apply to witches and wizards? I would have assumed > that Hula and Rowena, like all wizards and witches, had some > training from family members or magical friends, which could very > well have included something like "Latin for Magical Folk". > > Or do we think that magical folk in the dark ages had connections > with the church? > > Zo? They may well have done. Harry gets the name 'Hedwig' out of 'A History of Magic'; the real Hedwig was a saint, a nun, and founder of an order which educated orphaned children (Magical Worlds of Harry Potter, David Colbert). Hogwarts itself doesn't seem to have any formal church-based Christianity, but it keeps to a broadly Christian calendar; celebrating Christmas and the Eve of All Hallows/All Saints (Halloween) instead of the equivalent pagan festivals. Most 'literacy based' education in the Dark Ages was Church based; home education was generally craft-based. I can imagine the training for spells, herbs, potions etc being taught at home, but books were hand written and horribly expensive. Even the parchment to write a scroll on was horribly expensive. IMO, most magical folk would not be willing or able to spend the huge amounts of money needed to educate their child in literacy and Latin at home. Magical children may have been having to learn the necessary Latin in a church-based environment largely dedicated to producing monks and nuns. This may well have been one of the pressures that led to the founding of Hogwarts. But whether they learnt their Latin at a monastery/nunnery school or not, if they wanted to write scholarly papers, or share new discoveries, they would have had to write in Latin. Latin was the internet of the day; every educated person learnt Latin as their second language. An exciting piece of work could then end up being copied and copied and copied until it had been read all over Europe - whatever the native language of the reader. Pip From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 22 19:33:23 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 19:33:23 -0000 Subject: The vaults at Gringotts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40202 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sarahlegend" wrote: > Hey everyone! > > I've been lurking around HP4GU for a while and love the great > discussions that go on here - they really help me to get even more out > of the great HP books. > > Anyway, a contribution of my own to the discussions of > "foreshadowings" JKR is so good at weaving into the stories... > > (UK ed. of PS p57) - "An' I've also got a letter here from Professor > Dumbledore," said Hagrid importantly, throwing out his chest. "It's > about the You-Know_what in vault seven hundred and thirteen". > > (and from the UK ed. of POA p315 - Sirius Black's note to Harry > delivered to the Hogwarts Express to explain about the Firebolt... ) > - "I used your name but told them to take the gold from Gringott's > vault number seven hundred and eleven - my own". > > So... > > (1) Why did Black bother to mention what his vault number was (unless > he was being such a kind godfather as to give Harry access to his > wealth if Harry needs it)? > > (2) How come Dumbledore or Hogwarts itself has a mega-high security > vault just one door (if the Gringott's tunnels use the 'odd numbers > one side even numbers the other' system) or two doors away from that > of a convicted murderer and Azkaban prisoner? > > and (3) - WHat the heck is in vault number seven hundred and twelve? > > Sarah xx ________ That is very interesting, Sarah. I checked my US addition of PoA and the vault number is not in the letter from Sirius to Harry. I wonder if the vault assignments are random to help security. I do also wonder what is in vault 712. Gretchen From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Sat Jun 22 19:36:40 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 15:36:40 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's State of Mind Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40203 In a message dated 6/21/2002 5:07:21 PM Eastern 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. >> It's true that Harry has always bounced back from horrible situations (fighting Quirrel!Voldie, fighting Riddle and almost being killed by a Basilisk, and coping with the horrible truth of his parents murders and the problems their best friends had to endure) remarkably well...However....I agree that after this year, Harry is going to be a very different person. After the Graveyard Incident, he becomes quiet and withdrawn, and only enjoys spending quiet time with Ron and Hermione - which is something he's never done before. After SS/PS he was bummed about having to leave Hogwarts. After escaping from Riddle and the Basilisk, he's still bummed about having to leave Hogwarts. After the fiasco in the Shrieking Shack, he's contemplating how he can terrify the Dursleys with the fact that the escaped 'murderer' Sirius Black is really his godfather. After escaping from the graveyard...Harry withdraws and goes through a huge change. Once he returns to King's Cross, he's not sighing about how he has to go to the Dursleys, and making sure Ron sends an invitation to hs house. Rather, he's quieter, and accepting that what will come, will come. I do believe book 5 will show a very different Harry. *Chelsea* From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Sat Jun 22 20:15:14 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 16:15:14 EDT Subject: Pink Umbrella Message-ID: <4f.1f573156.2a4634d2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40204 I was reading my copy of Cos again, and saw that in the Chapter "Mudbloods and Murmurs", Hagrid's pink umbrella was mentioned again, and it was shown that Harry believed Hagri'd broken wand to be inside of it. 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? *Chelsea* From kerelsen at quik.com Sat Jun 22 21:11:15 2002 From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 17:11:15 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The female founders and Latin References: Message-ID: <008a01c21a31$598c93e0$9221b0d8@kerelsen> No: HPFGUIDX 40205 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Suzanne Chiles" To: Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 1:28 PM Subject: RE: [HPforGrownups] Re: The female founders and Latin SNIP > > Or do we think that magical folk in the dark ages had connections with the > church? Why not? In a time period where demonstrating magic would probably get the layman or woman tortured and executed, what better place to hide it than in an organization where mystical miraculous happenings were attributed to the power of God? I could easily see an educated order of nuns actually being a coven of Potterverse witches... True, there would be the problem of losing magical bloodlines because of the celibacy requirements, but many nuns in the middle ages did not take their vows as virgins, but after they'd been married, had children and were widowed. It was perfectly acceptable for a widow to take the veil and spend the rest of her life in a convent. Hmmm. Now that I think on it, this could possibly be one of the things behind the small size of "current" wizarding population in the UK... if many magical bloodlines died out because the last female lived a life of "religious" celibacy, it could account for the (assumed) highly inbred families such as the Malfoys, Crabbes and Goyles. Just something that popped into my head today... Bernadette/RowanRhys "Life's greatest happiness is to be convinced we are loved." - Victor Hugo, Les Miserables, 1862 From nobradors at hotmail.com Sat Jun 22 21:11:55 2002 From: nobradors at hotmail.com (nuriaobradors) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 21:11:55 -0000 Subject: A question about Sirius/Voldemort's death/sexuality in HP/The vaults at Grin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40206 "danellegirl56" wrote: > At the end of GoF, when Dumbledore sends Sirius off on his mission > to contact the "old crowd", I'm wondering how exactly he's going to > do this. I mean, most of the world still thinks he's a dangerous > criminal. Lupin didn't even know, so why would people who > (presumedly) had less contact with the Potters know? I wondered if > perhaps Dumbledore had informed them, but if Dumbledore has means of > communication, why would he need Sirius to go get them? Any ideas? Welcome Danelle! I was browsing through that that very passage yesterday, and notice Dumbledore also tells Sirius to "lie low at Lupin's for a while" and that "I'll contact you there". My guess is that probably AD will inform the "old crowd" of what really happened with Sirius and PP, perhaps even with Remus' collaboration. Liz wrote: >>> 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? <<< I guess the only way to kill him is killing his soul. Other that getting a dementos to kiss him, I don't recall other means of making sure the soul dies along with the body. Let's hope Harry finds one by the end of book 7! Amanda thinks she's abnormal because: >>>watching that thread on sexuality and the age of discovery, and how our 13 and 14 year old hero/ines are behind the curve. I must truly be some kind of dinosaur or have a hormonal imbalance or something I never even dated in high school. >>So my question to the list is: how many of you really got the sexual undertones that Elkins has pointed up? *As* sexual? Because I did notice the particular word usage, and its effectiveness in creating a creepy atmosphere, in all instances quoted--it just never struck me as sexual. >>>Of course, I'm one of the ones who thinks sexual by-play will get in the way of a good story....but then again, I'm abnormal, aren't I? Well, Amanda, welcome to the abnormality club. I totally agree with you. I never even fancied boys around me until I was 17 (and I'm "only" 27 now). I did like actors, but though I thought about sex, it was only a theoretical subject when applied to real life. I don't know where you are from, but I do, however, see a lot of concern regarding dating, kissing, even sex, in American films or TV shows portraying teenagers. Maybe is a cultural issue rather than an abnormality one? Or a generational issue, for instance, as I see teenagers now tend to discover their sexuality earlier in life, at least here in Argentina. Sarah wonders: > (1) Why did Black bother to mention what his vault number was (unless > he was being such a kind godfather as to give Harry access to his > wealth if Harry needs it)? Uhmmm... Guilt? "plesae, believe me, it's my own vault I took the money from, you can check the extract from the account". Not that Sirius seems the guilty-type, but given the circumstances, who knows. Another possibility is so we wonder about questions 2 and 3! > (2) How come Dumbledore or Hogwarts itself has a mega-high security > vault just one door (if the Gringott's tunnels use the 'odd numbers > one side even numbers the other' system) or two doors away from that > of a convicted murderer and Azkaban prisoner? Perhaps mega-high security vaults are not in a specific plece in Gringotts but rather you ask your vault to be standard or high security the moment you open your account. Whether is coincidence or not that Sirius' vault is practically next to to the PS vault, only time will tell, but if it is, I don't find it likely that AD or SB knows about this vicinity. I mean, if you're withdrawing money from your vault and someone needs to do the same from the vault next to yours, I believe the Goblins would wait until you come back so neither customer knows who's their vault neighbour or, worse, what have the got in their vaults. > and (3) - WHat the heck is in vault number seven hundred and twelve? 455 galleons, 545 sickles and 1 knut. (Okay, just kidding!) Nuri From conshydot at email.com Sat Jun 22 21:36:00 2002 From: conshydot at email.com (dasienko) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 21:36:00 -0000 Subject: QTTA Possible FLINT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40207 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Linda C. McCabe" wrote: >> The inside front cover has the list of students who checked out the book and > the due dates for return to the library. Given the fact that the school > starts on September 1st and they have a two month summer holiday, I've > gathered that the Hogwarts Express leaves on June 30th. This is the part > that gets squirrelly - there are four entries during the summer recess. Hi! At my Uni, books that are due during breaks can be returned by post or renewed by e-owl or telephone. It would be very simple to send an owl back to Hoqwarts with the book. Or Books can be kept for the entire break and are due on the first day back at school. Bureaucrats, they're everywhere. Visit AZKABAN:http://www.zhasea.com/azkaban/ikonboard.cgi From TaliaDawn3 at aol.com Sat Jun 22 18:40:58 2002 From: TaliaDawn3 at aol.com (TaliaDawn3 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 14:40:58 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort a Gryffindor? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40208 In a message dated 6/22/02 12:02:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Erikzamora at hotmail.com writes: > That's I think may be a clue that > Riddle wasn't a Slytherin, but a Griffindor. Even later on when > Harry is talking to Dumbledore (pg 332) about what house he should > be in, Dumbledore never says anything about Voldemort being in > Slytherin. I suppose people assume that the Dark Lord was in Slytherin because of what Ron said. I don't have my book with me, so this this isn't an exact quote. Ron says something to the effect of "There wasn't a witch or wizard who went bad that wasn't in Slytherin." So, most people think that the Dark Lord was in Slytherin. But I suppose that is false logic, right? Most people don't know that the Dark Lord was once a Hogwarts student named Tom Riddle. Professor Dumbledore mentions something about people not knowing about the connection between Riddle and the Dark Lord. So, in my humble opinion, it's completely possible that Tom Riddle was a Gryffindor. We already know that the "all bad wizards were in Slytherin" is false because of Wormtail. Which raises an interesting point: Did Ron not know anything about Sirus Black? If Ron says that Arthur told him that the largest piece of Wormtail found was his finger, then presumably he would've known that Sirus was the one that blasted him (supposedly). So, is Ron lying to Harry in PS/SS, or does he just not know yet? (I personally find Ron rather suspicious and would not at all be surprised if he were evil/turned evil. Kind of like that one guy in Josh Kirby: Time Warrior. The whole time we thought that was guy was good and the other evil, and in the end, we found out they were reversed! ... sorry. That was a trifle OT.) ~*~*~Talia Dawn~*~*~ What's the Spanish word for caliente? Who's with the band? I'm not with the band? Do you know anyone with the band? I don't know anyone with the band. Is there a band here? I see you shiver, with antici.........................pation. Don't dream it, be it. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. No better way to celebrate a holy day than with demonstration of ignorance. If you can see the bandwagon, it's too late to get on. If you realized how powerful your thoughts are you would never think another negative thought. If you dwell on what you don't want, you'll get more of it. The only time you were ever at peace in your whole life was when you were dead. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From crana at ntlworld.com Sat Jun 22 18:39:03 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 19:39:03 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:( TBAY): HP and the Superfluous Scene - Latin Learners References: Message-ID: <003701c21a1c$1588f9a0$683668d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40209 Rowen said: "IT's better to have your characters find out information (and thus, your readers) than talk directly to your reader. I don't really know how to explain why this is extremely faux-paux in writing. I can't come up with a word for it. If someone who is more articulate than me could explain it better, please do so." In the terminology of creative writing classes, I think it's called "Show, not Tell" :). I absolutely agree. --------------- Tessy wrote: "I have spent the last few days thinking about the four founders, particularly about the two women Rowena and Helga. My first question is: Is there anything stated, when Hogwarts was founded? I assumed that it was somewhere around 100 AD or something. But going by this date, I wonder how it was possible for Helga and Rowena to learn Latin, since this is the language needed for the various spells. I assume that the magical community was mixed with the non-magicals in that time, since magic was associated with the gods in pre-Christanity ages. Women had a high status in the celtic culture and most of the religious figures were females. But assuming this would lead to the fact that the celts detested the christians (save for the friars because there the two religions mixed) and would not want to learn their languages. So how did Helga and Rowena learn Latin?" I *think* I'm correct in saying that by the time Hogwarts would have been founded (assuming c.100AD) Britain had already been invaded by the Romans, some time earlier; although Greek was used for really important things, Latin was the language learnt and taught. Only the plebs didn't know any; anyone with an education would know Latin in Britain. In any case, as Pip says, I think Hogwarts was founded about 1000 years later than that. Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sarahlegend at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jun 22 20:57:44 2002 From: sarahlegend at yahoo.co.uk (sarahlegend) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 20:57:44 -0000 Subject: The vaults at Gringotts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40210 To my earlier comment about vault 711 belonging to Dumbledore/Hogwarts and 713 belonging to Sirius Black... Gretchen replied: > That is very interesting, Sarah. I checked my US addition of PoA and > the vault number is not in the letter from Sirius to Harry. I wonder > if the vault assignments are random to help security. I do also > wonder what is in vault 712. > Thanks for the reply, Gretchen. It's interesting that Black's vault # isn't listed in the US edition. Even if vault assignments are random it's a pretty massive coincidence that two people so closely linked to Harry (and James & Lilly) should have vaults so close together, especially considering how massive the Gringott's tunnel system is supposed to be (with the possibility of dragons guarding some areas). The mystery deepens... Sarah xxx Who has decided she likes posting here, just as much as she liked lurking! From alina at distantplace.net Sat Jun 22 22:18:27 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 18:18:27 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort a Gryffindor? References: Message-ID: <009201c21a3a$be540d40$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40211 I personally think Ron's just exaggerating to make a point. Perhaps it's true that most DeathEaters or even almost all DeathEaters that came from Britain were ex-Slytherins. And kids do tend to exaggerate things. Ron probably didn't remember about Sirius Black at the time of saying this to Harry and it's not like he can just up and say half a year later "Oh, Harry, remember how I said all bad wizards were Slytherins? Well I was wrong, just wanted to make sure to correct that." Personally, I think we're all getting too suspicious of everyone and too paranoid about good guys turning back. Alina. ----- Original Message ----- From: TaliaDawn3 at aol.com So, is Ron lying to Harry in PS/SS, or does he just not know yet? (I personally find Ron rather suspicious and would not at all be surprised if he were evil/turned evil. Kind of like that one guy in Josh Kirby: Time Warrior. The whole time we thought that was guy was good and the other evil, and in the end, we found out they were reversed! ... sorry. That was a trifle OT.) ~*~*~Talia Dawn~*~*~ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 13/06/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From meboriqua at aol.com Sat Jun 22 23:23:51 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 23:23:51 -0000 Subject: Hagrid the Betrayer/ Hagrid, the one who can't handle his job In-Reply-To: <001101c219f0$d7427f20$683668d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40212 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rosie" wrote: > I also agree Hagrid shouldn't, as a teacher, behave the way he does.. but look at it. Before he was made a teacher, he had become friends with HRH. He's an important source of support to them (e.g. Hermione when she falls out with the other two). He can't just emotionally cut himself off like that, and I don't see it as that important that he should.> Ah, but the situation with Hermione is when Hagrid *is* doing his job. It is great for him to be there as someone older and more experienced who can listen to Hermione (or Harry or Ron) and give advice. That is when Hagrid is really being a teacher, IMO. It is when he breaks down and cries to them that he loses all of his points with me. > I totally agree with you that he isn't very good at his job, but it's not really a role he is suited for, and he didn't ask for it! Don't blame Hagrid for being a bit of a useless teacher, it's not his fault> Why not? Would you accept a job offered to you if you knew you couldn't handle it? I wouldn't. To me, that is part of what being responsible is: accepting your limits. Hagrid did not do that, training or no training. The sad thing to me is that Hagrid actually has an *excellent* background in the care of magical creatures, but his bias towards the dangerous ones combined with his general insecurities prevent him from being the teacher he could be. I don't buy the "he didn't ask for it" excuse; there are plenty of things we are all asked to do in our lives and when we say yes, we must accept the responsibilities that come with our decisions. Either way, Hagrid is the one who ultimately failed at the position. --jenny from ravenclaw, who has obviously had colleagues just like Hagrid ********************************************************* > Rosie, who thinks Jenny would probably make a much better teacher than Hagrid, but can't dislike Hagrid nonetheless.> *Shuffles feet* Aw, shucks - thanks! I seriously doubt it, though. While a Draco wouldn't sway me (most of my students are Dracos and then some), I wouldn't know a Flobberworm from From meboriqua at aol.com Sat Jun 22 23:32:38 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 23:32:38 -0000 Subject: Harry's State of Mind In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40213 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Chelsea2162 at a... wrote: I do believe book 5 will show a very different Harry.> Sorry to snip so much here, but this is a more general comment. I, too worry about Harry's mental well being in OoP. Will he continue to be plagued by nightmares? Will OoP be when he finally takes a magical shot at Dudley (I seem to remember JKR mentioning something to that effect)? I just thought of something else: what if Harry continues to have dreams *with* Voldemort - always knowing what Voldemort is doing? Would that drive Harry absolutely batty? Or is that too contrived for JKR to devise? Whatever happens at the Dursleys this (3 year) summer, my heart goes out to Harry. I had nightmares for weeks after the WTC went down and I was way uptown at the time. Harry was there, with Voldemort, with the DEs, witnessing Cedric's death, being tortured himself... he'll have to be unbelievably strong to get through this. --jenny from ravenclaw, who loves Harry much more than she dislikes Hagrid *********************************************** From catlady at wicca.net Sat Jun 22 23:42:39 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 23:42:39 -0000 Subject: SPEW / Wizard Age / Immortal!V / Decisive Battles / Wands / NEVILLE Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40214 FourFuries wrote: << I suspect Hermione's minions here on the list will be shocked to discover that the biggest difference between House Elf slavery and our modern examples of abuse is that house elves are not human >> Did you mean to type 'minions', presumably meaning SPEW members, or did you mean to type 'detractors'? Because the way I first read your statement, I thought you agreed with SPEW that the House Elves are enslaved and abused and this is oppression and wrong and immoral and they should be freed. But when I got to typing this comment, I saw that your words could possibly be taken to mean that House Elf slavery is NOT ABUSE and NOT A BAD THING because House Elves aren't human and therefore (just as Hermione's detractors said to Hermione's "minions") are perfectly happy and healthy in their current condition. WIZARD AGE******** Ginny Merry Mom wrote: << We don't know when more important milestones might be reached, like when one could vote (if there is any of that in the WW) or marry or sign legal documents. >> I don't know if signing legal documents would be an important milestone in a world where Harry's name having been put into the Goblet of Fire was a BINDING MAGICAL CONTRACT even tho' Harry was underage AND it wasn't even him who put the name in. Anyway, if Harry's parents were married before he was born, they were married before July 31st 1980. Their age at that time *could* have been as young as 19. The evidence for Harry's parents' ages is that they were in the same year at Hogwarts as Snape and JKR said in an interview that Snape "is" 35 or 36. Of course, there is room to speculate whether that statement applied to Snape in Book 1, Book 4, or the year in which JKR gave the interview ... that is, in some year from 1991 to 2000. The Lexicon http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/index.html apparently chose the middle path, end of Book 4, 1995, and says that they were born in 1960, which would make them 20 when Harry was born. I did my computations at the same time as Lexicon Steve did his but ended up with 1957-8 (by using Book 1 as my marker), which would make them 23 then. The impression I get is that wizarding folk are allowed to marry and all other milestones at age 17, except if they do some of those milestones (such, I imagine, as getting married) before leaving Hogwarts, they will be expelled and never get any NEWTs. IMMORTALITY********** Lizbot asked: << if Voldemort can keep on coming back like that, how can they ever really kill him? >> It appears to be presented in canon that Voldemort kept coming back like that BECAUSE he was immortal, because he had made himself immortal by magic, but he is no longer immortal at the end of GoF, because he gave up his immortality in order to get a new body. There are things that Voldemort tells his Death Eaters in the GoF scene of the Death Eater circle in the graveyard: "how could they have believed that I would not rise again? They, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to guard myself against mortal death?" and "But I was willing to embrace mortal life again, before chasing immortal. I set my sights lower ... I would settle for my old body back again, and my old strength." Therefore, there is a theory that the famous gleam in Dumbledore's eye at the end of GoF is because Dumbledore heard Harry tell that Voldemort is now (temporarily) mortal again and therefore can now be killed without coming back like that. Grey Wolf repeated: << it's doubtful that Voldemort thought [his re-incarnation potion] up, since he is neither a potion master nor is the potion included in his field of study. He spent his life looking for inmortality methods, and the potion is a way to become mortal (basically, to get a new body). >> *I* think that Voldemort thought up his re-incarnation potion himself, despite the person who quoted him saying it was 'an old piece of Dark Magic'. I think it *IS* part of his area of study. You think of it as 'a way to become mortal', but I think of it as 'a way to come back after one's body is killed', and there is great confusion of thought about 'immortality" and "re-incarnation", about "coming back" and "never leaving". So in his years of study, he might have learned enough about re-incarnation magic and coming-back magic to decide that those spells were not going to reach him his goal, but enough to have the knowledge in his mind for him to brood over during all those body-less years. Hey! Maybe a different form of the re-embodiment potion (that only works on a person who already has a strong body) was what transferred him from his original mortal Tom body to his immortal Voldemort snake-man body! As I happen to believe that he transformed into his snake-man appearance WHEN/BECAUSE his attempts at immortality spells had success -- I imagine that was in 1969 and was immediately followed by recruiting Death Eaters to engage in terrorism and conquer the wizarding world. (I also happen to believe that the snake-man body has no genitals and no sex drive, having all the mental sex stuff subliminated into power, torture, and killing. I therefore reject all Voldemort/anyone slash or het.) Hey! maybe why Vapor!Voldemort keeps 'returning' to a forest in Albania could be, maybe it was in that forest that he did the most effective immortality spell, the one that causes him to remain alive as a vapor even when his body is killed or destroyed, and maybe what it really does is not to *remain alive* as a vapor, but rather to *come back* as a vapor, and a bug, I mean a not yet corrected feature, of the spell is that Vapor!Voldemort always coalesces into existence in the place where he did that spell. (An idea that reminds vaguely of Philip Jose Farmer's "Riverworld" series, in which the gimmick is that any one who dies is re-incarnated the next morning at a random location along the River, so some explorers seek new places by suicide ... the different is that V!V would re-appear at a NON-RANDOM location.) DECISIVE BATTLES******** Alexander wrote: << In military history there's no example of a country that won a war after losing the decisive battle, no matter how minor (or major) that battle would seem.>> and Grey Wolf replied: << most of the decisive battles were not identified as such until *after* the war, when historians could examine all the evidence >> Alexander answered: << That's why Klauzevitz warned in his works, that *every* battle can prove to be decisive. >> I suspect that is because there WAS NO decisive battle, in the sense in which Alexander asserts that the Graveyard Battle was the decisive battle of the Second Voldemort War. After everything is over, historians look back and find a battle which the eventual losing side lost and DECLARE it to have been the decisive battle, using as much ingenuity and research as our Theory Bay conspirators. Btw, the English transliteration is von Clauswitz. Btw, Alexander (did you once say I could call you Sasha or Lexy or Xander, something nice like that?), your sig always identifies you as a Gryffindor/Slytherin cross-breed, and I always bridle at that. You're welcome to be a Gryffindor/Slytherin combination (FAP seems to be full of self-declared Gryfferins and Slythindors and Ravenpuffs and Slytherclaws and so on), but in English, "cross-BREED" states what your PARENTS were, not where the Hat Sorted YOU. WANDS******* N Fry wrote: << I believe that there must be multiple wands that could be compatible with a wizard. Some are just more so than others. If not, what are the odds that the one wand that is suited to Harry just happens to be in the wand store that he stops in? >> Corinth Kkearny replied: << I think wands are something like certain types of clothing, such as evening gowns or bathing suits >> I agree with Corinth, altho' my metaphor was going to be shoe sizes (USA sizes in this example, sorry). Anyone with size 6B feet can wear a great many shoes that were made in size 6B (some may fit better than others for individuality reasons), and any size 6B shoe can be worn by a great many people whose feet are size 6B. But people with an uncommon size, such as 1AAA (super tiny and super narrow, there is a famous jockey's daughter who has this size) or 1EEE (super tiny and almost as wide as long) have a LOT of trouble finding ANY shoe that fits them. I think that the "size" (let me call if "zise") of a wand is NOT determined by its length, wood, core, and tensility (the traits that Ollivander lists) but by something magic. I think that self-propelled measuring tape has nothing to do with it, instead Ollivander figures out the customer's zise by how far off each sample wand is ... the first sample had way too much zing and way too little duzz and the wrong color of xyll, so let's try one with less zing and more duzz and a different color of xyll ... now this one has the right amount of zing but still too little duzz and still the wrong color of xyll ... But most people and also most wands would be one of a few common zises, so most customers would be properly fitted with any one of 15 or so wands that are among the 100 Ollivander keeps next to the cash register (yes, the cash register is not from canon). That's why he enjoys the challenge of a hard-to-fit customer, and why he has so many, many rare wands stacked up just waiting for centuries in case a customer comes in who needs EXACTLY that rare zise. N Fry: << Do you think it is possible to "outgrow" your wand? >> I personally don't think so, as I believe that the zise is some metaphysical part of the self, that doesn't change, but I think wands might wear out faster than people do, so that Lily could have worn out her 'first wand' during school and gotten a second one when she left school. Same for Charlie, whose "old wand" Ron was stuck with. However, the argument to the contrary is that apparently Voldemort is stiill using the wand that Tom Riddle bought 50 to 60 years earlier. Ann temporarily blue asked: << how does one get the core into a wand? >> to which Rosie answered: << Maybe they are sort of threaded through >> I think so, too, but my imagination specifies that a long hole is drilled into the solid rod of wood (by use of a drill bit that spins on its own when placed by hand, started and stopped by magic words, and guided straight by wand waves), the core is threaded into the hole, and then the bottom of the wand is sealed by a magic spell that regrows the wood. However, this web site has photographs of another way to put a core in a wand: http://www.thewandshop.com/wandmaker.htm N Fry wrote: << (who wants her own wand and is curious to know what type she would get) >> All the get-your-wand sites I know use randomizers, but this is the one with the most possibilities: http://www.angelfire.com/tx5/worldofmagic/wand.html The Wand Shop (above), the official WB HP site, and many others will randomly assign you one of only a few choices. The difference is, at the Wand Shop you can buy it in the physical world (but I have not shopped there yet). Ann concluded: << I wonder how much specialized training wizards get? Wand making sounds quite artistic, very few wizards in the business. Do wizards learn everything they need while at Hogwarts? Is that basic level of magic enough to do all the various things we've seen adult wizards doing (as a profession)? >> For some jobs, such as conductor on the Knight Bus and dishwasher at the Leaky Cauldron, I bet the kid just out of Hogwarts has already learned everything he/she needs. For some other jobs, the kid just out of Hogwarts would have to get hired into a trainee position (which I imagine is the kind of job that Percy has at MoM), and I believe that there are other jobs for which a kid just out of Hogwarts would have to go through an apprenticeship before being able to get an entry-level (journeyman) job. There is some reference in canon to the NEWTs being the highest qualification offered by Hogwarts, which doesn't rule out there being Guilds that offer a higher qualification, such as two of them: Journeyman and Master. I imagine that some of the Guilds would be very much like graduate schools in Muggle universities, but JKR's statement that there is no university for wizards would remain technically true because the Guilds had not joined together as one institution named University. NEVILLE******** Darrin to Elkins: << I find it hard to believe that had they been in Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff, the same advice wouldn't be given. >> << Ah, but it is heroic. :) You see caving in. I see a young man taking a brave step out of his shell and being rewarded for it. >> Darrin, you see it just the way that JKR intended it and most readers see it. But Elkins has a more subtle view, which I believe is worth understanding (not necessarily agreeing with). BTW, Elkins surely didn't intend to suggest that Harry and his friends were deliberately pressuring Neville to be more assertive; I'm sure she relizes that they were entirely intending to say comforting things to him, but noticing that, ironically, their comforting statements didn't comfort him at all. I expect that the same advice would have been given, about standing up for yourself, and physically fighting, maybe even if they were in Slytherin (!), because, as someone has pointed out on this list, the whole wizarding world (and apparently JKR, who once said: "If anyone was ever meant to be in Gryffindor, it's me") has the same value system, a warrior value system which is exemplified by the Gryffindor ideals. Also, it's the advice that is given in our Muggle world. But I can IMAGINE other advice being given. Slytherin advice: get some dirt on him and threaten to reveal it if he displeases you, or get something he wants and bribe him ... that latter has the flaw that he could take the bribe and not carry out his part of the bargain, so it would be best to arrange to not actually hand it over until the end of the school year. Get a big strong dumb Hufflepuff 'friend' to always accompany you as a bodyguard... Ravenclaw advice: if you learned to be invisible, he couldn't find you to hurt you. Do you want to borrow my Invisible Book of Invisibility? How about learning the Shield Charm? Or some kind of Confundus Charm that would make him forget that he intended to do something to you? Or if you were always somewhere other than he was ... you could make a schedule of his comings and goings in order to avoid him, and make a map of the Castle to find what other routes are available to you. Maybe we could get him expelled, if we documented all his wrong doing, with dates and times and witnesses... Hufflepuff advice comes in at least two flavors, depending on WHAT duty the Hufflepuff in question is loyal to. If heesh is loyal to the values of the wizarding world, the advice is much like that given by Our Heroes. If the Hufflepuff is loyal to certain Muggle religions, the advice is to turn the other cheek, love your enemies and bless them that hurt you, and remember that the meek will inherit the earth and the poor in spirit get the kingdom of heaven. It doesn't have to be Christianity (altho' those are the quotes that sprang most quickly to my fingers): Gandhi was the great philosopher of non-violent resistance and NOT a Christian. I think Elkins is coming from the non-violence viewpoint, seeing Neville as having a innate but inchoate attitude of non-violence, and wishing that he was put in the way of organizing his thoughts by studying the philosophy of non-violence, maybe via Gandhi and King, maybe via Christ and Buddha. I imagine that regular meditation would do much to relieve Neville's stress from being bullied, and that if he always responded to Malfoy's mockery and physical attacks with a calm smile and some calm statement like maybe: "I'm glad you're enjoying yourself so much; I love seeing people be happy.", that would drive Malfoy ABSOLUTELY UP THE WALL. However, I suspect that JKR has set up a situation in which non-violent resistance does not do one damn bit of good against Voldemort... I wonder what JKR thinks about non-violent resistance in real life examples? From m.bockermann at t-online.de Sun Jun 23 00:39:53 2002 From: m.bockermann at t-online.de (m.bockermann at t-online.de) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 02:39:53 +0200 Subject: Harry's State of Mind References: <1024788761.2397.27436.m10@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <004e01c21a4e$c947eaa0$ce429fc1@i7p8l9> No: HPFGUIDX 40215 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. And Chelsea added: But I can't help but worry about Harry's psychological and emotional state after going through what he did at the graveyard. ....I agree that after this year, Harry is going to be a very different person. After the Graveyard Incident, he becomes quiet and withdrawn, and only enjoys spending quiet time with Ron and Hermione - which is something he's never done before. ...After escaping from the graveyard...Harry withdraws and goes through a huge change. Once he returns to King's Cross, he's not sighing about how he has to go to the Dursleys, and making sure Ron sends an invitation to hs house. Rather, he's quieter, and accepting that what will come, will come. I do believe book 5 will show a very different Harry. I agree with you, Harry is bound to have a terrifying summer. He was already troubled in Hogwarts, where there were friends caring for him. But the holidays mean *two month* of loneliness and misuse by the Dursleys. I wish I could believe that Petunia and Vernon are human beings after all. That after they see the change in Harry, they might as least respect his grief. Or that Petunia will be friendlier to Harry. I mean, the being who killed her sister is back. But if anything, I guess they will be scared. Or worse, uncaring or not ready to believe. Will they even notice? And here is another point: the blood Peter has taken from Harry. Now, the *amount* of blood wasn't dangerous and isn't likely to cause lasting trouble. But this is a world of magic. What does the blood effect, except causing a glimpse of triumph in Dumbledore? Maybe nothing, maybe a lot. Maybe it's a kind of "magical wound" that robs him strength or joy of life (like The Ring in LOTR, for example). Maybe it gives Voldemort power over Harry (and vice versa, if Harry had the strength for it). Greetings from Ethanol From jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com Sat Jun 22 23:31:59 2002 From: jkusalavagemd at yahoo.com (jkusalavagemd) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 23:31:59 -0000 Subject: Sexuality in HP:The "Mirror of Erised" thread In-Reply-To: <000b01c219ee$c647cba0$683668d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40216 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rosie" wrote: Isn't one of the "points" being made here that love can come in many different forms, e.g. romantic love, sibling love, friend love? > > "rosie" I have been following these multiple interweaving threads about sexuality in HP for the past week, and, by and large I have found the arguments to be respectful, referencing textual evidence for the most part, and not inflammatory. I hope to continue in this vein. I tend to agree with the member (Sorry, I lost your post and there are too many posts for me to find it again) who posted that there seem to be those who want to find homo-eroticism in HP in order to proclaim it, and there are those who want to do the same thing in order to attack it. I personally have observed a lot of self- fulfilling textual criticism in these arguments, hence my characterization of this thread as "The Mirror of Erised" thread: what you want is what you get. For example, long slender fingers have been cited as textual evidence of homo-eroticism in HP. Long slender fingers evoke aristocracy, dexterity, sensitivity-- but unless you think all concert pianists are gay, this physical attribute doesn't prove any connection with sexuality, straight or gay. Another item that has been made much of is the wand. While I agree that the wand symbol is in itself phallic, JKR's use of this prop is not in itself phallic in intent. Wands have already been long associated with spells and magic, and the phallic baggage can be just that: unwanted and unintended. To quote another perceptive poster (and Freud), "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."-- and "penetrate" is not always used in a sexual context. Lastly, I would like to address the relations between and within the sexes. At least through the middle of GoF, the students in Harry's year appear to be in somewhat of a latent phase of development. A boy's best and most intimate friend is another boy, and there is absolutely nothing sexual about it. A boy can have a crush on a girl, without any intention of procreative or recreational sexual activity. It is entirely possible that these kids have not had their talk about "the birds and the bees" as yet. Who indeed would have told Harry? Not Uncle Vernon! JKR has shown no reticence in speaking of romantic matters when she so desires. She has Snape patrolling the grounds at the Yule Ball to prevent excesses of passion. She has shown the stirrings of sexuality in Harry, Hermione and Vikto Krum. She even has shown it in Ron, although more by his excessive anger at Hermione than explicitly. I, for one, would like to reserve judgment and see how JKR handles relations between/within the sexes in future books, when Harry Ron, Hermione et al pass through puberty. She has said that she will address this in her interviews. If she has Remus making a pass at Sirus, or Ginny at Hermione, I would say that those contending that HP is rife with homo-eroticism had made their point. Absent that, continue to look into the Mirror of Erised, boys and girls, I guarantee that, though you may be completely wrong, you won't be disappointed. Haggridd From crana at ntlworld.com Sat Jun 22 23:25:53 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 00:25:53 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid the Betrayer/ Hagrid, the one who can't handle his job References: Message-ID: <000701c21a44$27c64a00$99b168d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40217 Jenny wrote: "Why not? Would you accept a job offered to you if you knew you couldn't handle it? I wouldn't. To me, that is part of what being responsible is: accepting your limits. Hagrid did not do that, training or no training. The sad thing to me is that Hagrid actually has an *excellent* background in the care of magical creatures, but his bias towards the dangerous ones combined with his general insecurities prevent him from being the teacher he could be. I don't buy the "he didn't ask for it" excuse; there are plenty of things we are all asked to do in our lives and when we say yes, we must accept the responsibilities that come with our decisions. Either way, Hagrid is the one who ultimately failed at the position." Come on, we know how great he thinks Dumbledore is. In Hagrid's eyes, I think, Dumbledore wouldn't offer him a job unless he trusted him to do it well :) Maybe Hagrid could be sent to teacher training. I wonder how teachers get qualified in the WW? Incidentally, are you a UK teacher or are you from abroad? Rosie, having read about a UK teacher training thing, where you must tick boxes to show that you *can* write on a blackboard, and laughing at the thought of Hagrid doing so. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From crana at ntlworld.com Sat Jun 22 23:35:59 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 00:35:59 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's State of Mind References: Message-ID: <000d01c21a45$912b6100$99b168d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40218 Jenny wrote: "I just thought of something else: what if Harry continues to have dreams *with* Voldemort - always knowing what Voldemort is doing? Would that drive Harry absolutely batty? Or is that too contrived for JKR to devise?" If he can get through the scaryness of it somehow.. it could just be a vital weapon on the Light Side! You never know... "Whatever happens at the Dursleys this (3 year) summer, my heart goes out to Harry. I had nightmares for weeks after the WTC went down and I was way uptown at the time. Harry was there, with Voldemort, with the DEs, witnessing Cedric's death, being tortured himself... he'll have to be unbelievably strong to get through this." Yeh, I agree. At least at the Dursleys, he will (I hope) be fairly cut off from the WW. As someone said (I'm sorry, I forgot who) going back to the life where everything is so *petty* could be just the thing Harry's mind needs. Which is why, perhaps, Dumbledore is sending him back there. I do think that from what we have seen of him so far, Harry *does* have a lot of inner strength. He's been through an awful lot already, and I think he's getting stronger as a result of it. He also, in the WW, has some really good friends... and I think that will be very important. Rosie, presuming that from her post, Jenny is American, and not from the UK. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From datalaur at yahoo.com Sun Jun 23 01:52:55 2002 From: datalaur at yahoo.com (datalaur) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 01:52:55 -0000 Subject: book differences & Canon, was Gringotts vaults In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40219 > Gretchen replied: > > I checked my US addition of PoA and > > the vault number is not in the letter from Sirius to Harry. sarah: > Thanks for the reply, Gretchen. It's interesting that Black's vault # isn't listed in the US edition. I just recently heard the Stephen Fry tapes of HPSS and it seems like there are a lot of differences between the English and American books (assuming the tapes are made directly from the English written version). I had thought it was of the "loo to bathroom, fringe to bangs" type of change but it seems quite a bit more than that. (I had wondered why people quoted which version/chapter and page -- now I know.) I'm tempted to sit there with a book and compare to the tape. Can anyone discuss how the books wound up so different -- did JKR re- edit for the American version? How are people dealing with the canon changes wrought by the differences? This "vault 711" is just one detail that could have been rather important. If one buys into the "every detail is important" theory. If so... is it plausible that the American version (which is presumably a later version) is a somehow "better", she-got-a-second-chance-to-fix-things version? In other words, does one have more 'weight' than the other in canon? very curious, laur From pennylin at swbell.net Sun Jun 23 02:36:00 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (plinsenmayer) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 02:36:00 -0000 Subject: HPforGrownups: Message from the Moderators Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40220 This message has gone out as a "Special Announcement" (which means that people who normally access HPforGrownups through webview have received this as an individual email). As you know, we only use this function sparingly. HPforGrownups is hoping to sponsor (or partially sponsor) a HP event in 2003 or 2004. We would be accomplishing this via a non-profit corporation, which might act as sole or partial sponsor of a number of HP events in coming years. We are asking anyone with the following areas of expertise to contact the Moderators if they are interested in participating in the planning or if they could simply be available to answer some specific questions: a. Accountants. Bean counters: we need you desperately! In particular, we need assistance with creating and analyzing a preliminary budget. b. Anyone with experience forming or operating or serving on the Board of Directors of a non-profit corporation. c. Anyone with a business or financial background who would be interested in serving on the Board of Directors of a non-profit or advising a non-profit Board. d. Anyone in academia who would be interested in advising the conference planners or serving as a liaision between the planning group(s) and the academic community. If you have any of the above expertise or background and wouldn't mind answering some questions or want to become involved in planning these events, please contact the Moderators at: mods at hpfgu.org.uk Thanks! The Magical Moderator Team for HPforGrownups From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Jun 23 03:02:37 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 03:02:37 -0000 Subject: In Albania Scheming (FILK) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40221 In Albania Scheming A filk by Pippin To the tune of California Dreamin' Dedicated to Grey Wolf and Pipsqueak The scene: the Little Hangleton Graveyard The Death Eaters have assembled in a circle around Voldemort. Lucius Malfoy steps forward, "Master, we crave to know...we beg you to tell us...how you have achieved this...this miracle...how you managed to return to us..." VOLDEMORT All my powers were gone with that failed A.K. Well I felt my curse rebound and take me far away If I weren't immortal I'd have died that day In Albania scheming I've waited for today Left me in the lurch, you know my faithful strayed You better get down on your knees And kiss my robes and pray You know the Aurors were all searching That's why I had to stay In Albania scheming But now you're going to pay! Finally it happened, Wormtail came my way With flesh and blood and bone restored, I'll reign supreme this day So just give Potter back his wand, boys (I'm better off that way) In Albania scheming I've planned it all this way (My Albania scheming) My Albania scheming (Potter will be screaming) Is going to win the day I'm ready for the fray I'm going to win the day From editor at texas.net Sun Jun 23 04:11:18 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 23:11:18 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort a Gryffindor? References: Message-ID: <005c01c21a6c$07751920$917663d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40222 Talia Dawn said > I suppose people assume that the Dark Lord was in Slytherin because of what > Ron said. I don't have my book with me, so this this isn't an exact quote. > Ron says something to the effect of "There wasn't a witch or wizard who went > bad that wasn't in Slytherin." **LOON appears in a crack of thunder and maple-scented smoke, and pronounces doom upon Talia Dawn** You have a bad case of Movie Poisoning! **Points wand (made of purpleheart and ki-rin hair, by the way) at Talia Dawn, intones "Verbatim Clarificatum!" Talia Dawn is seized with an uncontrollable urge to re-read all four books and to write "I will check my references" 25,825 times** In the book, it was not Ron who said this. It was Hagrid. Tsk, tsk. As for the main question, I went flipping through CoS. When Riddle confronts Hagrid in the memory scene from the diary, they call each other by their first names, which may or may not Mean Something. And towards the end, when Harry is speaking with Dumbledore in Dumbledore's office, we have "It only put me in Gryffindor," said Harry in a defeated voice, "because I asked not to go in Slytherin..." "Exactly," said Dumbledore, beaming once more. "Which makes you *very different* from Tom Riddle." Which I read to mean that Tom Riddle would never have *not* wanted to be in Slytherin. But this is interpretation, and open for discussion. Has anyone ever asked JKR this, in an interview? It's probably of the "obviously" class of things, but you never know.... --Amanda, Primageist, Old LOON, Wielder of the Purple Wand From moocow_1985 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 23 03:57:33 2002 From: moocow_1985 at yahoo.com (moocow_1985) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 03:57:33 -0000 Subject: The Quidditch World Cup Match- Major Foreshadowing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40223 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rowen_lm" wrote: > Perhaps this is indicating that the end of the books will not involve > complete resolution of the good vs. evil battle. The dark side (I > just went to Star Wars II, so that sounds wierd) will appear to be > winning at the end of the series. BUT, paralleling Krum's snitch > capture, the light side will obtain a key victory which will make the > ongoing fight . . . what's the word I'm looking for? Not easier, but > erm, more hopeful perhaps. Kind of like the light in Dumbledore's > eyes at the end of GoF. Even thought the dark side has achieved > victory, Dumbledore sees something which may tilt the balance in > their favor. But what if it's the other way around? As long as we're drawing parallels, Ireland could represent "good" and Bulgaria represent "bad". And then it could all signify that in the overall picture, the "good" side will win but the "bad" side will take some small victory at the end that makes the "good"'s overall victory not quite as sweet. As for Dumbledore, I wonder if he knows that the advantage gained by Voldemort was not as great as it may seem and would have happened one way or another. Perhaps it is an advantage to Harry in some way. Or what ever it is, I'm sure it's important. Or maybe I should just go to bed. Lisa From tenpinkpiggies at hotmail.com Sun Jun 23 05:16:44 2002 From: tenpinkpiggies at hotmail.com (cornflower_o_shea) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 05:16:44 -0000 Subject: book differences & Canon, was Gringotts vaults In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40224 LAUR WROTE--- I'm tempted to sit there with a book and compare to the tape. Don't do it! Remember in the world of Harry Potter there is always someone even more fanatical than you! Go to... http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/master_index.html The Lexicon has a list of all the differences in the American and British versions. Look under 'd' for 'differences'. However it doesn't seem to mention vault numbers...could it be a tape thing? I only wish Steve would add a Canadian Category to this list, as it seems we have another version (Raincoast), which is closer to the British. (Thank Goodness, or I'd never have learned the word 'haring' or the fact that pudding is really all dessert and not just gloppy dessert in England...details which have made my life just that touch more meaningful...) -Cornflower O'Shea ???`????,??,????`???????`????,??,????`???????`????,??,?? NITWIT! BLUBBER! ODDMENT! TWEAK! - Albus Dumbledore ???`????,??,????`???????`????,??,????`???????`????,??,?? From tenpinkpiggies at hotmail.com Sun Jun 23 05:27:27 2002 From: tenpinkpiggies at hotmail.com (cornflower_o_shea) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 05:27:27 -0000 Subject: book differences & Canon, was Gringotts vaults In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40225 I stupidly wrote: However it doesn't seem to mention vault numbers...could it be a tape thing? Then I snuck into my sleeping child's room and stole PoA (again!). The Canadian (Raincoast) version does have the number. My guess is it's those muggles at Scholastic mucking things up and underestimating the general intelligence of the American reader again. "Oh, we can't have such a big number in the letter...it might make students who don't like math not want to read the book! Sales could plummet!" Let's just hope they learned their lesson with the Prior Incantatem fiasco and OoP will be decently edited. > -Cornflower O'Shea > > ???`????,??,????`???????`????,??,????`???????`????,??,?? > > NITWIT! BLUBBER! ODDMENT! TWEAK! - Albus Dumbledore > > ???`????,??,????`???????`????,??,????`???????`????,??,?? From tenpinkpiggies at hotmail.com Sun Jun 23 05:47:41 2002 From: tenpinkpiggies at hotmail.com (cornflower_o_shea) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 05:47:41 -0000 Subject: Power of Blood In-Reply-To: <004e01c21a4e$c947eaa0$ce429fc1@i7p8l9> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40226 --ETHANOL Wrote: And here is another point: the blood Peter has taken from Harry. Now, the *amount* of blood wasn't dangerous and isn't likely to causelasting trouble. But this is a world of magic. What does the blood effect,except causing a glimpse of triumph in Dumbledore? Maybe nothing, maybe a lot. Maybe it's a kind of "magical wound" that robs him strength or joy of life (like The Ring in LOTR, for example). Maybe it gives Voldemort power over Harry (and vice versa, if Harry had the strength for it). Well, we do know, in the case of unicorns, that blood taken by force curses the stealer, while "saving" them (ooh, don't you love irony!). So it would be reasonable to assume that Harry goodness and innocence will have an effect that is equatable (literally? or just by way of foreshadowing?) to that of unicorn blood. -Cornflower O'Shea ???`????,??,????`???????`????,??,????`???????`????,??,?? NITWIT! BLUBBER! ODDMENT! TWEAK! - Albus Dumbledore ???`????,??,????`???????`????,??,????`???????`????,??,?? > > > From tenpinkpiggies at hotmail.com Sun Jun 23 05:57:32 2002 From: tenpinkpiggies at hotmail.com (cornflower_o_shea) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 05:57:32 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's death? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40227 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lizbot1981" wrote: > 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? > Do they plan to kill him? Dumbledore says, in PS (Raincoast 216), "He is still out there somewhere, perhaps looking for another body to share...not being truly alive, he cannot be killed. He left Quirrell to die; he shows just as little mercy to his followers as his enemies. Nevertheless, Harry, while you may only have delayed his return to power, it will merely take someone else who is prepared to fight what seems like a losing battle next time -- and if he is delayed again, and again, why, he may never return to power." Perhaps Voldemort really is indestructable...which as a representation of evil makes sense. I don't think Rowlings so black and white as to want to hint that evil can be so completely and utterly destroyed that vigilence will never be required against it. Maybe Voldemort cannot be destoyed, but can be contained (like a beetle in a bottle...) That would be interesting... - Cornflower O'Shea ???`????,??,????`???????`????,??,????`???????`????,??,?? NITWIT! BLUBBER! ODDMENT! TWEAK! - Albus Dumbledore ???`????,??,????`???????`????,??,????`???????`????,??,?? From carmenharms at yahoo.com Sun Jun 23 06:16:02 2002 From: carmenharms at yahoo.com (snazzzybird) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 06:16:02 -0000 Subject: The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack - and Crouch Jr. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40228 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" wrote: > I can't help thinking that the master > manipulator is not Dumbledore (aided by Snape) but JKR doing her best > to make the 'face-value' story plausible - thus, e.g. Snape cuts off > rat references because it ensures *JKR's* goals of having Pettigrew > free, Sirius uncleared, Snape mysterious, and Harry being the actor > whose decisions shape the story The same thing occurred to me ? for a different reason. In GoF when Barty Crouch Jr. is confessing under Veritaserum, he says that Voldemort came to his house to free him from his father's Imperius Curse ? in the arms of his servant, Wormtail. I may not have the wording exactly right; don't have the book in front of me ? but Crouch definitely refers to Pettigrew as "Wormtail". That wasn't his "Death-Eater Name", it was his "Marauder Name". Why wouldn't Crouch call him "Peter" or "Pettigrew"? Wouldn't he know his real name? Well, possibly Voldemort always called him "Wormtail". But even if so ? *why*? I think the reason is exactly as stated by Davewitley. JKR doesn't want Crouch to provide backup for Harry's story that Pettigrew is alive ? therefore Sirius is innocent. By the end of GoF Harry has told that he's seen Pettigrew, he's seen the Death Eaters -- and once again it's his word against, well, everyone who doesn't believe him. By now even the Minister of Magic seems to have a vested interest in not believing what he reports that he saw. Why? Well, possibly it's because Sirius being cleared at this time would put the kibosh on some part of the future story arc. Am I being too simplistic here? I'm a first-time poster, so please forgive me if this has already been brought up elsewhere. snazzzybird, who loves it when a plan comes together. From oppen at cnsinternet.com Sun Jun 23 07:31:17 2002 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 02:31:17 -0500 Subject: Voldemort and Sexuality Message-ID: <020f01c21a87$f701e980$2c87aa41@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 40229 Myself, I think that the big V-man's sexuality, insofar as he can still be said to have any such thing, is pure-quill sadism and sociopathy---he'd not be interested in Harry in a "normal" (well, for a man lusting after a 15-year-old-or-so boy, anyway) sexual way. Nor Hermione. Nor anybody or anything else. He would only be interested in them as _objects_ to be manipulated or destroyed, as suits his goals. Very like a chess-player in some ways---the chess metaphor from the first book may come back to greet us again. Keep in mind all the dangerous and unusual magical transformations that he went through to go from the handsome, appealing Thomas Riddle to the horrifying, hairless (at least when we see him) Voldemort. I don't think that anything resembling a "normal" sex drive could have survived those changes. He's cut himself off from normal humanity. He literally does not want the normal human lot, which includes death---he wants to be immortal. Even Nicholas Flamel wasn't immortal, just very long-lived thanks to the Philosopher's Stone...and when it was time for that to be destroyed, we are told that he went willingly into that good night. Voldemort doesn't wanna go, and if he ever goes, it'll probably be kicking and screaming and clawing every inch of the way. His caressing of his wand, after _thirteen years_ without it---without the main emblem and tool of a wizard, without which a wizard is no wizard---put me very much in mind of the scene in Sondheim's _Sweeney Todd_ when Sweeney, after his imprisonment and escape, is re-united with his case of very high-quality razors. I could just about see Voldemort, standing there starkers (YUCK!) raising his wand to the heavens, and roaring Sweeney Todd's line: "At last, my arm is complete again!" From crana at ntlworld.com Sun Jun 23 10:27:08 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 11:27:08 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: book differences - Wormtail's name References: Message-ID: <002a01c21aa0$881285c0$843468d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40230 Cornflower wrote: "I only wish Steve would add a Canadian Category to this list, as it seems we have another version (Raincoast), which is closer to the British. (Thank Goodness, or I'd never have learned the word 'haring' or the fact that pudding is really all dessert and not just gloppy dessert in England...details which have made my life just that touch more meaningful...)" I am British but I remember how much I used to like reading books with American words in when I was younger and trying to understand what they meant. I have just been listening to the American talking books version (Listening Library) and... it just doesn't sound right... come on, "Curse of the Boogers"? Owl Mail? I also have to say that whoever reads them is nothing on Stephen Fry. Get the Stephen Fry tapes, they're really really good. I mean, looking that that Lexicon differences list... was it *really* necessary to change "Mummy" to "Mommy"? or "Happy Christmas" to "Merry Christmas"? It sounds as weird to me as reading an American book where all the characters, including the NY taxi driver - sorry cab driver - speak in obscure British public school (sorry, private school) and Lancastrian slang.... Incidentally, were any Americans (as a nation) insulted that the American publishers thought no one would buy it if it had the word "Philosopher" on the cover, hence the change to Sorcerer's Stone? ----------------------- snazzzybird wrote: "I may not have the wording exactly right; don't have the book in front of me - but Crouch definitely refers to Pettigrew as "Wormtail". That wasn't his "Death-Eater Name", it was his "Marauder Name". Why wouldn't Crouch call him "Peter" or "Pettigrew"? Wouldn't he know his real name? Well, possibly Voldemort always called him "Wormtail". But even if so - *why*?" Do we know what his "DE Name" was? As far as I remember, Voldemort called Pettigrew "Wormtail" all the way through GoF. I always thought it was just because it makes Wormtail sound inferior, like a worm, and it was one of Voldemort's way of keeping him in his place; he could hardly call him "Petey boy" and even "Pettigrew" sounds... wrong. However, I think your interpretation (that JKR wants to keep Pettigrew innocent, Sirius guilty) is more probably correct :) Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Sun Jun 23 12:41:26 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 13:41:26 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hagrid the Betrayer/ Hagrid, the one who can't handle his job References: Message-ID: <011901c21ab3$4b0e6d20$57c97ad5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 40231 jenny_ravenclaw wrote: > About Hagrid's childishness again - if it is part of his giant blood > (which is an idea that I don't like) that he's emotional and simple > minded, then he sure as hell shouldn't be trusted with important > errands and responsibilities. I don't think it's part of his giant genes - Madame Maxime has the same combination, presumably, but she is able to run a school. Dumbledore even happens to comment she is doing a good job, but I'm not sure how meaningful it is, coming from him. Irene From heidit at netbox.com Sun Jun 23 14:51:38 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 14:51:38 -0000 Subject: Muscle Deep/ Hagrid, the one who can't handle his job In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40232 "naamagatus" wrote: > > > Anti-Hagrids are often bothered by the Buckbeak incident, but what > really happened was that Draco received a flesh wound that was healed > within a few minutes. I have no idea why people are so convinced that a wound to skin and muscle can be healed within a few minutes. Is it because bones can be, sometimes? Clearly, there are different rates of healing for different things in the magical world. Harry, in PS/SS, still develops a headache and is exhausted long after his ordeal in the chamber, but on a much more mundane note, Ron isn't able to be healed quickly enough to go with Harry and Hermione in PoA, even though all he had was a broken leg. He didn't even wake up until after Snape's yelling was finished (or if he did, there was no indication that he was conscious). In the Muggle world, healing of muscles is a much more complicated process than it is for bones, because there are more nerves which need to be regenerated. A simple bone fracture, like the kind it's implied Neville has in PS/SS, comparatively just needs to "recalcify" - in other words, it has to knit. But muscle injury is generally a more complicated thing, because blod vessels, nerves and, in Draco's case, skin, all have to regrow, and it's entirely possible that even in the wizarding world, something can go wrong. Things can in healing bones - we saw that with Gilderoy - and even though Madame Pomfrey is much more compentant than that, we don't know that even she can do it instantaneously. While I do think that Draco exagerated his injury to delay his Quidditch start that season, and to get coddled a bit in Potions class, he *really was injured*. And I agree with Jenny that there is no reason why Hagrid should've exposed a class of 13 year olds to a creature with razor sharp talons. Even if one of them hadn't been deliberately inattentive, there were SO many things that could've gone wrong, that it was an inherently risky thing to do. heidi tandy http://www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 23 16:02:56 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 16:02:56 -0000 Subject: Power of Blood In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40233 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cornflower_o_shea" wrote: > --ETHANOL Wrote: And here is another point: the blood Peter has > taken from Harry. Now, the *amount* of blood wasn't dangerous and > isn't likely to causelasting trouble. But this is a world of magic. > What does the blood effect,except causing a glimpse of triumph in > Dumbledore? Cornflower replies: > Well, we do know, in the case of unicorns, that blood taken by > force curses the stealer, while "saving" them (ooh, don't you love > irony!). So it would be reasonable to assume that Harry goodness > and innocence will have an effect that is equatable (literally? or > just by way of foreshadowing?) to that of unicorn blood. > Cross book reference with the Narnia books has just occurred to me here: SPOILER WARNING: THIS POST REVEALS PLOT POINTS FROM 'THE MAGICIANS NEPHEW'. Cedric Diggory is a loose rearranging of the name of Digory Kirke; the schoolboy hero of C.S. Lewis's 'The Magician's Nephew'. One of the things Digory has to do is collect a magical apple from a tree guarded by a Phoenix and bring it back to safeguard Narnia. While he is taking the apple (with permission) he is tempted by Narnia's Voldemort Equivalent, who tells him that the apple will save his dying mother's life if he takes it back to her instead of to Narnia. Instead, he does as he's been asked and is then told by Aslan that the stolen apple would have given his mother life, yes. But a cursed life; someday they would have looked back and said it would have been better after all if she had died in her illness. So, Voldemort has killed Cedric Diggory (Digory Kirke) and stolen Harry's blood (the apple), using it to give himself life - but will it also be a cursed life? END SPOILER I think there is also a cross-reference with Cedric Diggory and unicorns - as well as his wand having a unicorn-hair core, he would also fit the description of 'pure, defenceless and magical' - which is a good description of a unicorn. So Voldemort has, so to speak, again killed a unicorn as part of a spell to preserve his life. Pip (who apparently suits a Maple wand with phoenix feather core, much to her relief. Unicorns aren't really 'me'.) Squeak From quill_49 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 23 16:54:33 2002 From: quill_49 at yahoo.com (quill_49) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 16:54:33 -0000 Subject: Voldemort and Sexuality In-Reply-To: <020f01c21a87$f701e980$2c87aa41@hppav> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40234 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Eric Oppen" wrote: >>Myself, I think that the big V-man's sexuality, insofar as he can still be said to have any such thing, is pure-quill sadism and sociopathy...<< I think that Voldemort has no sexual desire/preference/need at all. Here's why...Desire. All we really know of his "desires" is living forever. And killing Harry. Preference...I don't think he's the type who cares, actually. *snort* Caught in the middle, he is. Need--there isn't a need for sex--just life. I also think that his want to kill Harry and over-take the Wizarding World is too strong for him to even begin to think to care about sex. Or maybe he just can't get it off his mind. Who knows? -Quill AKA Charlie ______________________________________________________________________ What is a Youth? Impetuous fire. What is a Maid? Ice and desire. The world wags on. A rose will bloom. It then will fade. So does a Youth. So does the fairest Maid. From rowen_lm at yahoo.com Sun Jun 23 14:08:33 2002 From: rowen_lm at yahoo.com (Liz Muir) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 07:08:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Voldemort a Gryffindor (NOT) In-Reply-To: <1024788761.2397.27436.m10@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020623140833.20838.qmail@web20910.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40235 Erik wrote: >>That's I think may be a clue that Riddle wasn't a Slytherin, but a Griffindor. Even later on when Harry is talking to Dumbledore (pg 332) about what house he should be in, Dumbledore never says anything about Voldemort being in Slytherin. << Sorry to burst all your bubbles, but check out page 107 of the US hardback edition of SS (The Journey for Plat. 9 3/4) at the very top. Ron is miserable over whether he'll be in Gryffindor or not. Here's the quote: "What house are your brothers in?" asked Harry. "Gryffindor," said Ron. Gloom seemed to be settling on him again. "Mom and Dad were in it, too. I don't kow what they'll say if I'm not. I don't suppose Ravenclaw would be too bad, but imagine if they put me in Slytherin." (Harry)"That's the house Vol-, I mean, You-Know-Who was in?" "Yeah," said Ron. He flopped back into his seat looking depressed. I just checked my UK edition. In the paperback, the quote is on page 80 of PS. Middle of the page. It's exactally the same ('cept Mom is Mum). So I guess that knocks out Gryffindor!Voldemort and anyone who had the Weasley's being in another house. Unless Ron's mixed up, which he could be. He could be making the same assumption we were that Voldie was in Slytherin. ===== 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!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From rowen_lm at yahoo.com Sun Jun 23 14:34:43 2002 From: rowen_lm at yahoo.com (rowen_lm) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 14:34:43 -0000 Subject: book differences In-Reply-To: <002a01c21aa0$881285c0$843468d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40236 Rosie wrote: >>I am British but I remember how much I used to like reading books with American words in when I was younger and trying to understand what they meant. I have just been listening to the American talking books version (Listening Library) and... it just doesn't sound right... come on, "Curse of the Boogers"? Owl Mail? I also have to say that whoever reads them is nothing on Stephen Fry. Get the Stephen Fry tapes, they're really really good.<< >>I mean, looking that that Lexicon differences list... was it *really* necessary to change "Mummy" to "Mommy"? or "Happy Christmas" to "Merry Christmas"? It sounds as weird to me as reading an American book where all the characters, including the NY taxi driver - sorry cab driver - speak in obscure British public school (sorry, private school) and Lancastrian slang....<< Actually, I quite like the Jim Dale American book-on-CD's. I think he does quite a good job. I do have to admit that I like to read the British versions (went there in person and bought a set) because of the slang. It sounds about as strange to me as American slang does to you. But still, the books have not been fully Americanized. When I read them, the characters still sound British. Even with the slang changed, they don't sound like Americans. Has to do with word order and choice of adjectives. But anyway . . . . I do wish they hadn't changed some of the minor slang like Happy Christmas and Mum, but it was definetly necessary to change things like jumper. That would have lost quite a few "dumb Americans." lol >>Incidentally, were any Americans (as a nation) insulted that the American publishers thought no one would buy it if it had the word "Philosopher" on the cover, hence the change to Sorcerer's Stone? << I am extremely insulted by it. Everything over here gets "idiot proofed" when it's imported. You should see the mangled versions of Japanese anime we get. It's doubly bad since it's a "children's book" since apparently American kids are only slightly more intelligent than slugs. For example, almost all anime shows (since they are cartoons and therefore only kids like them) are editted to include so little of the actual plot and backstory that they barely make sense! And then they cut out anything mildly objectionable (i.e. a 4th grader having a crush on her teacher). It's annoying and insulting. Gah! Don't get me started on it. I swear, I'll start my own publishing company and do things right!!! Grrrrr . . . . I hate American editors! *needs to go cool off now* Rowen Avalon From lav at tut.by Sun Jun 23 14:51:52 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 17:51:52 +0300 Subject: PS/SS Chess Game Message-ID: <57935483.20020623175152@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 40237 Greetings! Has anybody tried to analyze the party of chess played by Ron in PS16? We have only a few pieces of information, but this may be enough to reverse-engineer at least the general flow of the party, as well as the opening and ending. I'm not a good chess player, but I hope there are a few on the List. So far, we have the following facts and assumptions: 1) Since chess set was enchanted by McGonagall, we are free to assume that white played "McGonagallishly" - that is, in the classic positional manner. 2) Of black figures, no knights, at least one bishop and at least one castle have survived to the end of the game. 3) First "taking" move was made by white: Queen took Knight. What opening could this be? Surely this is rare for a "classic" player to make aggressive moves with a queen in the very beginning of the party. 4) Throughout the game, white maintained the minor advantage of force. Probably Ron was sacrificing quality to win tempi? 5) Last moves in the game were as follows: black: knight moves, check white: queen takes knight black: bishop moves 3 squares, checkmate Note that this ending is quite uncommon. If I understand this correctly, then there's only a counted number of situations where such ending is possible (save for mirror positions). So, if any professional chess player wants to develop this subject, I would be most interested to listen. Unfortunately, the party shown in the movie is different from the one described in the book: in the movie, the first loss of black was a pawn, not a knight. Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, always happy to throw weird ideas into community. Sunday, June 23, 2002, 17:37 local time (GMT+2:00) From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Sun Jun 23 14:59:46 2002 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 14:59:46 -0000 Subject: book differences - Wormtail's name In-Reply-To: <002a01c21aa0$881285c0$843468d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40238 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rosie" wrote: > >Rosie wrote: > I mean, looking that that Lexicon differences list... was it *really* necessary to change "Mummy" to "Mommy"? or "Happy Christmas" to "Merry Christmas"? It sounds as weird to me as reading an American book where all the characters, including the NY taxi driver - sorry cab driver - speak in obscure British public school (sorry, private school) and Lancastrian slang.... > > Incidentally, were any Americans (as a nation) insulted that the American publishers thought no one would buy it if it had the word "Philosopher" on the cover, hence the change to Sorcerer's Stone? > ----------------------- > > I would have bought the book, no matter what the title was. I've always been a little irritated at the fact that they changed it to "Sorcerer" because it has nothing to do with that word, to me. I ordered the British version from the UK Amazon company and it just made more sense to use "Philosopher"! In my eyes, Nicolas Flamel was not a sorcerer, he was a philosopher, and there's a difference. When my son and I started reading the books together, I had family members get hysterical because of the title of "Sorcerer"! Frankly, they still are upset that I read them to my kids, but I can't help but think that some of the hype wouldn't be so bad if the title was "philosopher." People might be more willing to read it with an open mind; as it is, they see the American title and, suddenly, we're all evil! Oh well.... Alora > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From danellegirl56 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 23 15:51:19 2002 From: danellegirl56 at yahoo.com (danellegirl56) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 15:51:19 -0000 Subject: Flower names Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40239 Random Monkey wrote: Buttercup wrote: Rowen Avalon wrote: Alright, I was thinking about this, and somthing occured to me. There are a few different kinds of lilys (the two that immeditly spring to mind are the water lilly and and the lily-of-the-valley). I noticed that water lilly was spelled differently than Lily's actual name, do specific kinds of lilys have specific meanings? Also, lily-of-the- valley, could that possibly be a reference to Godric's Hollow? Isn't hollow another name for a small valley? That is really streching it though. My last point of interest, the birthday flower for the month of May is a lily-of-the-valley and the birthstone for that month is an emerald. Snickerdoodle From danellegirl56 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 23 16:36:31 2002 From: danellegirl56 at yahoo.com (danellegirl56) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 16:36:31 -0000 Subject: Voldemort a Gryffandor Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40240 Erik wrote: It's in SS when Hagrid and Harry are in Diagon Alley, right after Harry comes out of Madame Malkins and expresses concerns about his house (if I had the book, I'd give the exact page, sorry). Hagrid assures Harry that it's better to be a Hufflepuff then a Slytherin by commenting that "there wasn't a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slyterin, You-Know-Who was one" Snickerdoodle From saitaina at wizzards.net Sun Jun 23 18:46:22 2002 From: saitaina at wizzards.net (Saitaina) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 11:46:22 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort and Sexuality References: Message-ID: <007901c21ae6$45dff2a0$4c4e28d1@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 40241 Quill AKA Charlie wrote: Even if he doesn't desire nor think about sex, he's still human (sorta) so the need is there. He may not act upon it but it's there. For all we know Voldemort could have a nice little harem in that old house of his. Yes that is all we know of his desires but he could have several more. He could have a desire for a young blonde down in Diagon Alley, he could have a desire for a rich, chocolate cake...he could have a desire to be the first evil wizard to kill 2535 muggles in one session...we just don't know. We've seen Voldemort twice and Tom Riddle once, that doesn't give us a lot of chances to figure out just what makes him tick beyond killing Harry and muggles. Maybe he really is a two dimensional villain that wants nothing more then young Harry dead and the world rid of muggles and muggle-borns but I personally think there's more below the surface including sex. Besides, he just recently got a fresh new body...I'm sure he wouldn't mind trying it out, make sure all parts are in working order. And being celibate for 13 years is a long time... Saitaina Who just jumped into the thread so her points were probably brought up. ***** [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ronale7 at yahoo.com Sun Jun 23 19:57:35 2002 From: ronale7 at yahoo.com (ronale7) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 19:57:35 -0000 Subject: about lavender Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40242 I've noticed several people wondering what lavender symbolized. In a book called the Dictionary of Mythology Folklore and Symbols, I found (1) the lavender is the January 9 birthday flower symbolizing acknowlegment, assiduity, and distrust, and (2) the color and scent carry the following personality traits: dilettante, expert in social ways, grandiosity, lack of meticulousness, self-centeredness, and showiness. Hope this helps. --Ronale From tenunmeikai at aol.com Sun Jun 23 17:36:58 2002 From: tenunmeikai at aol.com (tenunmeikai) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 17:36:58 -0000 Subject: Semi-Intro; Mostly Theories - Hermione, Snape, and Alchemy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40243 Here I am, your newest (maybe) member, Audra Thompson. At 16, I may be a few years short of "grownup". I'll respect your opinion if that's the case, but I still have a lot to give to the Harry Potter fandom. Well, there's the intro. Now onto "theories". I'm a rabid Hermione fan - any geek or read-a-holic would be drawn towards her. She's somewhat of a Tomboy as well, which many women can relate to. I support the Granger/Snape romance that currently makes its home on WIKTT. My reasoning for this is mostly based on Hermione's maturity, and her ability to see past the glitter of a situation and into the nitty-gritty. She'd make a great psychologist for old Angst-Magnet Snape. Recently, I've been thinking up a storm on HP-fanfiction involving my favorite subject, Potions. Fics that center on Hermione's study of Muggle chemistry in the making of potions are incredibly interesting to me, and as such, I've begun to study up on alchemy. Needless to say, said study is going remarkably slow. Alchemy is based almost wholly upon symbolism and less on the ratios of elements (like in chemistry). If anyone has any related thoughts on the use of actual alchemy in our world and the HP counterpart, I'd be willing to trade thoughts here or through Instant Messaging. My nickname on AOL is TenunMeikai. Anyway, that's it for now. I'm not quite sure, even now, what section this ought to be in, but I'm sure the moderators will know what to do. --- Audra From crana at ntlworld.com Sun Jun 23 17:42:08 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 18:42:08 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: book differences - Lilies References: Message-ID: <001001c21add$4cd02840$c3b068d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40244 Rowen said: "Actually, I quite like the Jim Dale American book-on-CD's. I think he does quite a good job." Is he the guy who does Listening Library? He's not bad.. but really... Stephen Fry is better! Trust me! and: "I do have to admit that I like to read the British versions (went there in person and bought a set) because of the slang. It sounds about as strange to me as American slang does to you. But still, the books have not been fully Americanized. When I read them, the characters still sound British. Even with the slang changed, they don't sound like Americans. Has to do with word order and choice of adjectives. But anyway . . . . I do wish they hadn't changed some of the minor slang like Happy Christmas and Mum, but it was definetly necessary to change things like jumper. That would have lost quite a few "dumb Americans." lol" People wouldn't have understood "jumper"?!?!?! Not even from the context? Dear lord. Still, I suppose most British people only know so much American slang because all they do is sit in front American TV shows all day. Out of interest, if it's not too OT, what British words did people reading the books not understand, or liked? For example, I have heard that "Prat" is becoming a very in word in the US. To me it jars even more because they only changed some of the words. The only American version I have heard is SS, but it sounds very funny because someone might say, "Oh golly, you prat, I had gotten that already" or whatever, mixing very English and very American ways of speaking. I had written: >>Incidentally, were any Americans (as a nation) insulted that the American publishers thought no one would buy it if it had the word "Philosopher" on the cover, hence the change to Sorcerer's Stone? << And Rowen wrote: "I am extremely insulted by it. Everything over here gets "idiot proofed" when it's imported. You should see the mangled versions of Japanese anime we get. It's doubly bad since it's a "children's book" since apparently American kids are only slightly more intelligent than slugs." Ah - I'm glad to see the American public fighting back :). I noticed from the differences list that they introduced Dean Thomas in the Sorting Ceremony in the US edition too, and described him as black. Does anyone know if this was because someone decided he should be introduced earlier? Or was it (as I fear) because they thought, "Oh no, we better point out that some random characters are black to be more inclusive, even though we don't both pointing out when people are white, and even though it has no bearing whatsoever on the story."? I'm all for books representing the whole of society... but I think it looks very clumsy to just point out that the odd character is black, or Asian, or whatever, and just assume that obviously everyone else is white; it looks as if it's just been done so that the publishers can go "Look! We had a single mother/black child/wheelchair user" etc. Although maybe it was just to get him mentioned earlier. What do you think? Do you have the "Adult versions" and "Child Versions" over there too? Exactly the same but with different covers? That struck me as quite stupid too. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Snickerdoodle wrote: "Alright, I was thinking about this, and somthing occured to me. There are a few different kinds of lilys (the two that immeditly spring to mind are the water lilly and and the lily-of-the-valley). I noticed that water lilly was spelled differently than Lily's actual name, do specific kinds of lilys have specific meanings? Also, lily-of-the- valley, could that possibly be a reference to Godric's Hollow? Isn't hollow another name for a small valley? That is really streching it though. My last point of interest, the birthday flower for the month of May is a lily-of-the-valley and the birthstone for that month is an emerald." I think you can spell it water lily or water lilly... I checked on www.dictionary.com... so I doubt it has a bearing. Interesting points, though, especially the connection between green emeralds and lily-of-the-valley... Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rvotaw at i-55.com Sun Jun 23 21:24:14 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 16:24:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort's death References: Message-ID: <033301c21afc$589f2260$6aa0cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 40245 Liz 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? Well, the way I see it is that he wasn't really "killed" the first time, just extremely weakened. In Book one, when Hagrid is out on the island/rock to get Harry, and is explaining about his parents death, Harry asks: "But what happened to Vol-, sorry, I mean, You-Know-Who?" To which Hagrid replies: "Good question, Harry. Disappeared. Vanished. Same night he tried ter kill you. Makes yeh even more famous. That's the biggest myst'ry see . .. he was gettin' more an' more powerful--why'd he go? Some say he died. Codswallop, in my opinion. .. (skipping brief discussion on theories) " . . . "Most of us reckon he's still out there somewhere but lost his powers. Too weak to carry on." Richelle From bard7696 at aol.com Sun Jun 23 21:26:43 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 21:26:43 -0000 Subject: Jim Dale, Stupid Americans, Hagrid's worth as a teacher In-Reply-To: <001001c21add$4cd02840$c3b068d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40246 > Rowen said: > > "Actually, I quite like the Jim Dale American book-on-CD's. I think he > does quite a good job." I write: Jim Dale also does the narration for the special extras on the Sorcerer's Stone DVD. Quite amusing, listening him make regurgitation noises after eating a vomit-flavored Every Flavor Bean. > > And Rowen wrote: > "I am extremely insulted by it. Everything over here gets "idiot > proofed" when it's imported. You should see the mangled versions of > Japanese anime we get. It's doubly bad since it's a "children's book" > since apparently American kids are only slightly more intelligent > than slugs." > > Ah - I'm glad to see the American public fighting back :). > I write: This is not the first example of something being dumbed-down for us Yanks. The James Bond movie "Licence to Kill" was originally called (and may have been called in the UK) "Licence Revoked" but the studio feared that not enough people would know what "revoked" meant. And they didn't even notice that "License" was spelled wrong ;) Hah, little humor for my teddy cousins. :) OK, onto the Hagrid's worth as a teacher discussion. Might I plop myself firmly on the fence between the parties, whose names I am afraid I have not been able to keep very good track of. There seem to be three main arguments -- not put forth by the same posters -- against Hagrid being a worthy teacher. I disagree vehemently with one, find another quibbling and do agree with the third. 1) He endangered the students by bringing a Hippogriff to class. Bull! Hagrid gave very clear instructions on how to deal with a hippogriff. Draco chose to disregard them. As I have said before, blaming Hagrid for Draco's idiocy is exactly what creates little jerks like Draco in the first place. "My child couldn't have done that," you can hear Lucius Malfoy (and sadly, too many RL parents) saying. "It must be the teacher's fault." Students 13-years-old (and younger) are able to take equestrian classes, and there are certain safety issues necessary with horses, are there not? 13 years old is well above the age of reason. Malfoy should have taken responsibility for his actions, but with parents who spoil him rotten, that will never happen. I cover education issues for a newspaper, and I hear teachers telling me stuff like this all the time. In Kansas City, a teacher resigned after parents protested her flunking their children because they plagiarized. Buckbeak seemed perfectly tame IF he was respected and not insulted. Draco instead did the ONE thing to set him off, and that one thing was adequately covered by Hagrid. 2) Hagrid's reaction to this was unbecoming a teacher. There is a solid defense for Hagrid in this case. His entire curriculum, except for grubworms, would probably have SOME danger. Even the unicorns the girls later became so fond of disliked boys to the point where there could have been a danger. So, he obviously was trying to eliminate any danger. And since we are talking about magical creatures, there are obviously few choices that are completely harmless. BUT... I do agree that to overreact to the point of doing nothing but grubworms was a mistake as a teacher. Do I think it's a firing offense? No, I do not. But my vehement defense of Hagrid in argument 1 only makes this offense worse. Say you are an industrial arts teacher in RL. Some student, careless with the power saw, slices off a finger. The student completely disregarded safety precautions and violated the teacher's instructions. The teacher is cleared of wrongdoing (as Hagrid was). To basically restrict the class to the learning equivalent of sanding wood is wrong. 3) He's too buddy-buddy with the Trio. I find this a quibble for one main reason. I have yet to see any evidence that Harry, Ron or Hermione are being treated any differently IN CLASS from other students or that Hagrid is being unprofessional with them IN CLASS. They are indeed friends, but I don't see any favoritism in the course. And I don't see any evidence of the Trio blowing off the lessons -- except the grubworms, which everyone blew off -- because of the informality of the relationship. I emphasize "in class" because yes, Hagrid helped Harry with the dragons. And McGonagall, the pillar of integrity, has overlooked at least one transgression for the good of the Quidditch Cup. And Snape goes out of his way to help Slytherin. For sheer classroom integrity, it is Snape who is the worst teacher in school. Blatantly favoring the Slytherins is ridiculous. Hagrid doesn't openly do this with the Trio. Is it a perfect situation, being so buddy-buddy? Certainly not. But I do not see how it has harmed class. Darrin -- Did a lot of sanding wood in school From moxiebuzz at hotmail.com Sun Jun 23 22:19:01 2002 From: moxiebuzz at hotmail.com (lupinboi) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 22:19:01 -0000 Subject: about lavender In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40247 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ronale7" wrote: > I've noticed several people wondering what lavender symbolized. In a > book called the Dictionary of Mythology Folklore and Symbols, I found > (1) the lavender is the January 9 birthday flower symbolizing > acknowlegment, assiduity, and distrust, and (2) the color and scent > carry the following personality traits: dilettante, expert in social > ways, grandiosity, lack of meticulousness, self-centeredness, and > showiness. > > Hope this helps. > > --Ronale (I'm new here. Forgive me if this has all been said before, or if I'm crossing some previously drawn and whispered about line of decor. I always seem to step on virtual toes whenever I join one of these things.. ;) ) It makes sense. Lavender and Pavarti are both unrepentant "girly girls" (to borrow an expression from my friend Carolyn) who think that "ohmigod, Mad Eye Moody's eye should, like, not be ALLOWED." Heck, there had to be shallow preppies at Hogwarts, I suppose... ;) ~andy From alina at distantplace.net Sun Jun 23 23:14:34 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 19:14:34 -0400 Subject: grubworms/flobberworms plus a question about the movie References: Message-ID: <001901c21b0b$cdbcfc20$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40248 Ok, I have to ask, is "grubworm" your own term or is that what they're called in the American Edition? I have the Canadian edition of the books and they're called "flobberworms" there, same in the "Magical Beasts And Where To Find Them" companion book. ----- Original Message ----- From: darrin_burnett His entire curriculum, except for grubworms, would probably have SOME danger. Darrin And a question about the movie. I saw online that someone claimed the movie revealed the twelth use of dragon's blood to be an oven cleaner. Where in the movie did it say that? Or is the person who claimed so simply mistaken. Alina of Distant Place http://www.distantplace.net/ "I will take my place in the Great Below" - Nine Inch Nails --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 13/06/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moxiebuzz at hotmail.com Sun Jun 23 22:30:02 2002 From: moxiebuzz at hotmail.com (lupinboi) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 22:30:02 -0000 Subject: Jim Dale, Stupid Americans, Hagrid's worth as a teacher In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40249 > This is not the first example of something being dumbed-down for us > Yanks. The James Bond movie "Licence to Kill" was originally called > (and may have been called in the UK) "Licence Revoked" but the studio > feared that not enough people would know what "revoked" meant. > Sorcerer's Stone is slightly less of a dry title than Philosopher's Stone... but what do I know? Are the books dumbed down for American audiences? My friend K has all the British editions.. is it worth plowing through those to catch all the differences? Apart from "soccer/football" and the like, I was led to believe that they were almost exactly alike. ~nd From bard7696 at aol.com Sun Jun 23 23:27:46 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 23:27:46 -0000 Subject: grubworms/flobberworms plus a question about the movie In-Reply-To: <001901c21b0b$cdbcfc20$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40250 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Alina" wrote: > Ok, I have to ask, is "grubworm" your own term or is that what they're called in the American Edition? I have the Canadian edition of the books and they're called "flobberworms" there, same in the "Magical Beasts And Where To Find Them" companion book. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: darrin_burnett > His entire > curriculum, except for grubworms, would probably have SOME danger. > > Darrin > > And a question about the movie. I saw online that someone claimed the movie revealed the twelth use of dragon's blood to be an oven cleaner. Where in the movie did it say that? Or is the person who claimed so simply mistaken. > Yeah, I got the worms wrong. I just said grubworms because that was in my head and I didn't get up to check the book. :) My argument still holds though. And I recently re-watched the DVD and I don't remember oven cleaner coming up. Darrin From jcurry1 at pdq.net Sun Jun 23 23:43:32 2002 From: jcurry1 at pdq.net (Joyce Curry) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 18:43:32 -0500 Subject: Book differences Message-ID: <3D165D24.6348A15F@pdq.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40251 "Rosie" asked if any Americans were offended when Scholastic changed the title of the original book. I don't remember there being any mention in the press about the changes until after the book had been out a while and was proving to be very popular. On a personal note, I remember when I read The Sorcerer's Stone the first time, I was confused by the reference to "chip bags" instead of "crisp bags". I am a serious watcher of BBC shows on PBS and A&E and any where else I can find them. I know that potato chips are not called that in "British". It took a couple of on-the-spot rereadings to realize that potato chips were in those bags and not french fries (as I so lovingly call fried potatoes). I also noticed that the book kept mentioning sweaters instead of jumpers. These were the two changes that I noticed in my first reading of the American edition. They bugged me. I then went on a search for information and discovered the title was different for the British edition. Then I got annoyed. I was determined to get my hands on British editions of the books. The summer after we purchased our copy of The Sorcerer's Stone, my daughter and I took a trip to England. We spent an entire afternoon going into every single bookstore on Charing Cross Road looking for the Philosopher's Stone in hardcover. We couldn't find it. The Prisoner of Azkaban had just been published in England (but not the States) and Philosopher's Stone was only readily available in soft cover. We bought Chamber of Secrets and Prisoner of Azkaban from stores in London but I finally had to order Philosopher's Stone from a bookstore in York. They got it for us in two days. Imagine an American bookseller getting a custom ordered book in two days. My daughter and I (and my mother and father) read all three books in just a few days, on trains, buses, while waiting in lines. (It is difficult, but not impossible, to sight see and read at the same time.) After reading The Philosopher's Stone, I got angry. The differences between the American editions and the British editions were more substantial than I had realized. Since then, I NEVER read the books in the American editions. When Goblet of Fire was published I ordered it from a British bookseller. I intend to do that with all subsequent books. These books are British books and I do not want to read Americanized versions of them. JKR wrote them in a particular way. They are based on a certain way of life, of looking at the world. The references to British life and language are part of what I and my children love about the books. It is insulting to believe that children can not adapt and learn new ways to learn a language they may think they already know. I know that my children have certainly expanded their vocabulary by reading the books in the British edition. Joyce [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jcurry1 at pdq.net Mon Jun 24 00:35:05 2002 From: jcurry1 at pdq.net (Joyce Curry) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 19:35:05 -0500 Subject: Latin and British chronology Message-ID: <3D166939.6CE6A8DC@pdq.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40252 I am responding to a thread of posts related to the use of Latin in spells. It could be that JKR just likes using Latin as the language of her spells. Also, we know that there are more schools than Hogwarts. Latin, when it was a living language, was used throughout Europe. Using Latin for the spells means that witches and wizards throughout Europe can learn and discuss their craft with each other or learn from a variety of books without being limited by their native language. Joyce From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Mon Jun 24 00:39:26 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Lilac) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 17:39:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Father/Protector Message-ID: <20020624003926.46649.qmail@web21510.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40253 Since we are on the topic of name meanings (at least a few posts ago with the flower names)... The first time I read POA, the word "patronus" immediately reminded me of "pater", and because of mater=mother, as in Alma Mater, I naturally I concluded that pater is father...make sense? I've always loved POA most because of the connection Harry feels with his Father [Harry's patronus being a stag just like Prongs and H1 mistaking H2 for his father sending out the patronus over the lake ("He lives in you, Simba...")] and then actually getting two real-life father figures-- Lupin and Sirius, who I personally don't think are Ever So Evil, at least not in POA anyway. I later read on What's In A Name http://www.theninemuses.net/hp/ by the wonderful Priscilla Spencer that patronus = protector, which made total sense...it protected Harry from the dementors. But I couldn't get that pater/father thing out of my mind, so being inspired by name meanings, I did a little net research myself, and found... p#259;ter , tris (old gen PATRVS. Inscr Corp. Lat. 1469; dat PATRE, ib 182), m. [Sanscr. root p#257;, to nourish, *protect*; Lat. pasco; hence, Zend, patar, protector; Gr. pat?r; Sanscr pitri; Engl. father; Germ. Vater] , *a father, sire* (my emphasis) and clicked on a similar word, which sounded like patronus...patritus: p#259;tr#299;tus , a, um, adj. [pater, like avitus from avus] , of one's father or forefathers Here's the link: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%2334152 So, IMHO, Harry's protector was indeed "of his father" in the shape of Prongs. His father was protecting him again (which is such a touching sentiment that I need a tissue...really, I'm not kidding!). *sniff, sniff* --Lilac (who, after dabbing her eyes, is worried that she used entirely too many parentheses in writing this (no... really?) and feels that Hermione would have worried about that little detail as well) p.s. sorry if discussed before "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!? Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Mon Jun 24 02:12:39 2002 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 24 Jun 2002 02:12:39 -0000 Subject: File - hbfile.html Message-ID: <1024884759.68258142.77152.m12@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40254 An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From editor at texas.net Mon Jun 24 02:19:36 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 21:19:36 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: grubworms/flobberworms plus a question about the movie References: Message-ID: <002401c21b25$973a1060$3b7e63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40255 Darrin said > And I recently re-watched the DVD and I don't remember oven cleaner > coming up. It wasn't in the movie. It was in an interview someplace. I recall a thread on this list that chased it down, long ago--it can't be that common a set of words, so I'd do a search in the message archives for "oven, cleaner" and find it. It took us a while to find the specific reference back then, too. Then again, last time Lexicon Steve may have noted it down--look there? --Amanda From elfundeb at aol.com Mon Jun 24 02:44:36 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 22:44:36 EDT Subject: Hagrid, Dumbledore, & Second Chances (WAS Hagrid the Betr... Message-ID: <6.2ad946e7.2a47e194@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40256 Caroline, quoting Cindy: You summed up my problems with Hagrid in one wonderful sentence: << I'm asked to believe that Dumbledore thinks Hagrid's weaknesses are to be tolerated.>> Yes. You see, this actually sums up my problems with Dumbledore as well. Second chances are all very good, imho, but when you give them, don't you expect some repentance in return? Shouldn't the forgiven one make a good faith effort to turn away from whatever he (and so far it's always a he in the Potterverse) did to screw things up so royally in the first place? I can excuse Dumbledore's actions, sort of, on the basis that he has a dual role - he's both headmaster and leader of the anti-Voldemort resistance - and that Hagrid's position is exclusively in furtherance of the latter. Dumbledore knew all along he would never be able to count on the Ministry for support, and that Hogwarts would ultimately become headquarters of the resistance, so he's been quietly assembling the best team he can muster for Voldemort's next reign of terror. Look what he's assembled so far: He's got the Oracle at Delphi (or perhaps Mrs. Rochester, depending on how you look at it) locked up in the North Tower making predictions about the Dark Lord. He's got a former DE and spy, who just also happens to be one of the WW's best potion brewers (PoA, ch. 8) who ensures a constant supply of Veritaserum when needed to question suspects. Who cares if he teaches by intimidation and has a vendetta against Harry? He's got a tiny wizard (a half-goblin?) who just happens to be a duelling champion. He could be very useful one of these days. He's got a certified Animagus. Some of these people even know how to teach. Which is a good thing, because Resistance Headquarters does double as the best school of magical education in Europe. And he's got Hagrid. There are good strategic arguments for having him around. Dumbledore probably has been contemplating for a long time that he may need an emissary to the giants. And he doesn't have anyone else available who might be able to make contact with them. But Hagrid is not prepared for any such job - he's never been asked to think for himself or develop any judgment or even use his wizard powers. He's not fit for any job at all other than gamekeeper. Dumbledore's also got a couple of job openings, and he can't afford to make any more hiring mistakes like Quirrell and Lockhart. The number one qualification for a job at Hogwarts these days has got to be loyalty. Just look at who else he hires - Lupin, one of the "old crowd" for DADA, and after Lupin resigns (Dumbledore did *not* sack him) he hires a retired Auror. And for the Magical Creatures job, well, no one is more steadfastly loyal than Hagrid. Whatever else I think about Hagrid (for a summary, read Jenny from Ravenclaw's posts, to which I give a loud "me too"), I never suspect his loyalty (even if it is blind loyalty). Caroline again: What message is JKR trying to send about second chances? That they should be handed about like candy? I hope not. And I guess that's why I'm sort of pulling for a Hagrid screw-up down the pipe. I think Dumbledore believes in giving those who are loyal to him as many chances as they need to get it right. Dumbledore has a long history of favoring on-the-job apprenticeships to classroom lessons. He's rather a Deist in his strategy: Instead of intricately worked out plans with specific outcomes, Dumbledore just makes available the tools they will need to train themselves. He knows they will screw up sometimes, and the results may be very bad. But he's going to rely on them to learn to make good decisions - and believes they will learn best from their mistakes, no matter how many they make. And he has no qualms whatsoever about letting someone tackle a problem they're not ready for; after all, he let Harry deal with the Philosopher's Stone. But Hagrid fails so spectacularly and so often that it's hard to accept Dumbledore's patience. Hagrid's curriculum does get better after Rita Skeeter's article (a year and a half after he begins teaching). He teaches a class on Nifflers. (Maybe Professor Grubbly-Plank left him some lesson plans.) It's pretty good, possibly his best class ever. It looks like he's got some confidence. And IIRC, we don't see him drinking after the Yule Ball. But then he slams Karkaroff into a tree and embarks on some xenophobic ranting. Two steps forward and one step back. Maybe Hagrid did inherit just a little bit of the giants' viciousness after all. It doesn't seem like his judgment has improved at all. And Dumbledore's going to send Hagrid on a diplomatic mission? He must be really desperate. I don't have a good feeling about this mission. Well, I've almost talked myself into the Dumbledore-is-desperate-and-has-to-keep-Hagrid theory, except for one thing. What about all those testimonial letters Dumbledore gets from parents after Rita Skeeter's article? Are we supposed to believe that everyone loves Hagrid so much they don't care if he can teach, or if he drinks too much? Are they ignorant of everything he's done? Or do they all just feel sorry for him, that great enormous guileless child? And maybe that's why I don't like Hagrid, if the best thing I can say is that I feel sorry for him. > Hagrid endangered the > students by bringing a Hippogriff to class. > > Bull! Hagrid gave very clear instructions on how to deal with a > hippogriff. Draco chose to disregard them. As I have said before, > blaming Hagrid for Draco's idiocy is exactly what creates little > jerks like Draco in the first place. [snip] > > Buckbeak seemed perfectly tame IF he was respected and not insulted. > Draco instead did the ONE thing to set him off, and that one thing > was adequately covered by Hagrid. > You are right about Draco, of course, but as a lawyer I can't help adding two more words to the analysis: contributory negligence. Hippogriffs *could* be dangerous if not handled properly; Draco was dripping blood along the ground as Hagrid took him away. Hagrid gave Harry very clear step-by-step instructions that took into account the temperament of this particular hippogriff. Draco wasn't listening and was clearly at fault. But letting the entire rest of the class tackle the hippogriffs at the same time was not a smart move. Wouldn't it have made more sense for Hagrid to have let each student come up in turn so he could guide them through the process? Of course it would, but Hagrid has no sense that others aren't as comfortable with "interestin' creatures" as he is. He has no judgment. Debbie, wondering if the real reason she doesn't like Hagrid is that she can't handle any pets bigger than a hamster [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dicentra at xmission.com Mon Jun 24 02:51:29 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 02:51:29 -0000 Subject: TBAY: HP and the Superfluous Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40257 Dicentra stands on the deck of her newly christened barge, mouth agape, as Pippin and Debbie paddle off in the ELVIRA kayak with her only two can(n)ons on board. They can't do that! She says to herself. They can't just... just... DO that! Scratching her head, she looks at the new white lettering on the side of the barge. GARBAGE SCOW, it reads. (Gibberish, Altogether Redundant Blather, and Gobbledegook Everywhere! Superfluous Can(n)on Obtains Welcome) Dicentra had hoped for something a little more elegant, like SUPERFLUITY or EXTRANEOUS or even the ever-popular IRREGARDLESS, but as these acronyms don't have a spell-out, they're not much good. GARBAGE SCOW it is! Now, she thinks as she rolls up her sleeves. Time to get those can(n)ons back. > > > > Dicentra pulls her waterproof copy of PoA out of her robes and > turns to page 364 of the Scholastic Edition. "I don't think you can > assert *when* Sirius and Crookshanks began to collaborate. > . > > > > "See? There is no timeframe given as to when they began to > work together. Sirius doesn't say that he first tried to get in, then > he got the cat to help him. You can assume that if you want, but > the text doesn't support it. << > > Pippin whips out her own hardcover and does a quick check for > dates: > > 10/15 Crookshanks attacks Ron's bag. Ron and Hermione argue about it. > 10/31 Saturday morning. Ron and Hermione make up their spat over Crookshanks. > 10/31 evening. Attack on the Fat Lady > 11/6 Saturday Harry stops Crookshanks and reckons Ron is right about him. > > "Hah! It doesn't seem likely to me that Ron and Hermione would have made up their dispute or that Harry would have made his remark if Crookshanks had been trying to get at Scabbers all that time." "I still don't see it," says Dicentra. "For all we know, Sirius ordered ALL the attacks on Scabbers. So asserting that the scene in question presents us with the first Sirius-ordered attempt on Scabbers is not substantiated. Furthermore, it's not necessary to establish that Crookshanks persisted in going after Scabbers. If we subject this scene to another set of premises, we get the same set of actions: Scabbers is an ordinary rat, Crookshanks is an ordinary cat, and Sirius Black is still rotting in Azkaban. None of the action need change. So Crookshanks trying to get Scabbers isn't a clue to anything. And as I said before..." >>Frankly, the timing in this is all screwed up anyway: Sirius goes after Scabbers for the second time *after* Scabbers fakes his own death. Sirius knew it was a faked death, so why go looking in Ron's bed for him? This smells suspiciously like a FLINT to me. But this barge don't collect FLINTS, it collects... um... superfluity."<< > Pippin counters: > "Sirius attacks *because* he knows it's a fake death. At that point Scabbers was probably still in Gryffindor Tower, perhaps even still in Ron's dorm room. Crookshanks would know. Sirius may have been trying to panic Pettigrew into showing himself. Or maybe Sirius is just plain gonzo. Manic!Depressive Sirius, anybody?"< Dicentra bristles. "Sirius might be gonzo, but he's not stupid. He's seen Peter do the faked death thing before, and he knows Peter can do it right. It makes no sense for Scabbers to stay in the dorm after his little drama. If he stays in or near Ron's bed, he risks being found by Ron and the jig is up. If he stays in Gryffindor Tower, he risks being caught by Crookshanks, who can see in the dark and smell the little rat. Nope, when you fake your death, you high-tail it from the scene of the crime as fast as you can because it Just Won't Do to be found alive. That's why I say it's a FLINT. As it is, the only reason for Sirius to rip Ron's bed curtains is to send up a red flag to the reader--that Sirius might not be after Harry, as we have heretofore supposed. Scabbers suddenly has nothing to do with it at this point, even in retrospect." "Did you hear that, Sirius?" Dicentra shouts to the sky. "You blew it! You were supposed to show up in the dorm *before* the Rat faked his death! Afterwards doesn't cut it." There's a small pop and a tall, dark stranger with haunted eyes stands before Dicentra. "Listen to me, lass," he says, grabbing her shoulders and shaking her. "YOU spend 12 bloody years in Azkaban and see how well you remember YOUR lines! I don't have to take this from some... some... *muggle* who floats around on an imaginary GARBAGE SCOW! Besides, I couldn't get in until the chubby kid left the passwords on the table. He's the one whose timing is off." Dicentra just stares at him, dazed, with a stupid grin on her face. "Do that again," she says breathlessly. The stranger lets go of her shoulders, shakes his head, and just before he Disapparates can be heard muttering "...another one of THOSE..." Still dazed and just a bit flushed, Dicentra mutters "I'll never wash these robes again..." Pippin, however, is tapping her foot impatiently. Dicentra snaps out of it and continues with the matter at hand. "And as for that whole chapter of GoF, you'll have to take that up with Cindy. But even so, I get to keep BOTH can(n)ons." Dicentra whips her wand out of her robes and points at the can(n)ons in the ELVIRA kayak. "Tortam Comere Tanto Habere!" she shouts. Suddenly, both can(n)ons are back on the deck of the GARBAGE SCOW. Pipppin and Debbie blink. The can(n)ons in the ELVIRA kayak are still there, too. "What's the point?" says Pippin. "Is this your way of calling a draw?" "Don't be ridiculous," says Dicentra. "I won, of course. But if you can take either of these scenes and place the crux of a speculative theory on what you find therein, I will myself toss the can(n)on in question into the water. But I don't think that you can. Compare the importance of these scenes to Snape Brings Lupin the Potion, Lupin Fails to Hurry Things Along, or Lupin's Empty Grindylow Tank. Don't come close. Editor could have splinched the whole thing and we'd never know it was gone." Pippin, uncertain of what to do now, jumps into the ELVIRA kayak and paddles off, leaving --Dicentra, eager to find more can(n)ons for her scow From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Mon Jun 24 02:43:08 2002 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (arcum42) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 02:43:08 -0000 Subject: Father/Protector In-Reply-To: <20020624003926.46649.qmail@web21510.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40258 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Lilac wrote: > > Since we are on the topic of name meanings (at least a few posts ago with the flower names)... > > The first time I read POA, the word "patronus" immediately reminded me of "pater", and because of mater=mother, as in Alma Mater, I naturally I concluded that pater is father...make sense? > > > p#259;tr#299;tus , a, um, adj. [pater, like avitus from avus] , of one's father or forefathers > > Here's the link: > > http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=P erseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%2334152 > > So, IMHO, Harry's protector was indeed "of his father" in the shape of Prongs. His father was protecting him again (which is such a touching sentiment that I need a tissue...really, I'm not kidding!). Along a similar line, I thought I'd point out that while patronus means patron or protector, another closely related latin word is paternus : of a father, paternal, native. http://www.sunsite.ubc.ca/LatinDictionary/HyperText/p.html Also, my dictionary (one of these nifty ones with word derivations)drives the word "patron" from the latin patronus (legal protector, advocate), then further to Medieval Latin as "lord; master" and being derived directly from pater (which is indeed father). --Arcum From Edblanning at aol.com Mon Jun 24 11:34:37 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (edblanning) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 11:34:37 -0000 Subject: Latin and the Female Founders In-Reply-To: <003701c21a1c$1588f9a0$683668d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40259 Rosie: > Tessy wrote: > > "I have spent the last few days thinking about the four > founders, particularly about the two women Rowena and > Helga. My first question is: Is there anything > stated, when Hogwarts was founded? I assumed that it was > somewhere around 100 AD or something. But going by > this date, I wonder how it was possible for Helga and > Rowena to learn Latin, since this is the language > needed for the various spells. I assume that the > magical community was mixed with the non-magicals in > that time, since magic was associated with the gods > in pre-Christanity ages. Women had a high status in the > celtic culture and most of the religious figures were > females. But assuming this would lead to the fact > that the celts detested the christians (save for the > friars because there the two religions mixed) and would not > want to learn their languages. So how did Helga and > Rowena learn Latin?" > > I *think* I'm correct in saying that by the time Hogwarts would have been founded (assuming c.100AD) Britain had already been invaded by the Romans, some time earlier; although Greek was used for really important things, Latin was the language learnt and taught. Only the plebs didn't know any; anyone with an education would know Latin in Britain. In any case, as Pip says, I think Hogwarts was founded about 1000 years later than that. Yes, you're correct on the latter. Both the Sorting Hat and Prof Binns say that Hogwarts was founded over a thousand years ago. Just for the record, Britain, well, southern Britain, became part of the Roman Empire in AD 43. How many people were educated enough to know Latin is a moot point. A date in the tenth century, or perhaps rather earlier puts the founding of Hogwarts firmly into the Anglo- Saxon era. Or Pictish in Scotland. At this time, yes, the educated would know Latin (at least, after the arrival of Christianity). As far as women went, I would suggest that that would include only the daughters of nobility, educated privately (and not necessarily then) and nuns, also often of noble birth. (As a matter of interest, the school my daughter is about to move on to was founded in 604, but it didn't admit girls until 1993!) I don't know anything about witchcraft during the period, but I think it's unlikely that practitioners of native magic would be Latin speakers. But I think it's a mistake to try to put Hogwarts' founding into a Muggle historical context. We're told the founders built the castle. Well, castles didn't exist in Britain during the Saxon period (with or without plumbing!)There were no large stone buildings, excepting some churches. OK, there was the original Westminster Abbey, sometime in the 900s (built by a Frenchman) but nothing else substantial and certainly not in Scotland. The names of the founders don't ring true for the period, either. Gryffindor seems to be of French origin, more the sort of thing you'd get after the Norman Conquest. So it looks to me like we either just have accept what JKR says and not question it too closely, or assume that already there was a rift between magical and non-magical folks, which means that we don't have to worry too much about how Helga and Rowena learned their Latin. On a related note, it has been suggested that Latin is used for spells as it is a sort of lingua franka, allowing communication between wizards of different nationalities. My Latin is somewhat rusty, but I would say that many of JKR's spells aren't so much Latin, as Latin-derived. She uses some very odd forms with no consistency. To me, she's just playing with words in the same way she often does with names. We also have no evidence whatsoever that the students learn Latin, or any other language, come to that. I imagine too that over the years, magical practice developed and changed, so that perhaps when Hogwarts was founded, the spells may even have had different expressions and not have been in Latin. Do you discover a spell (do you have to *find* the magic words), or do you create it, embuing words with magical meaning in the process? Or are the words just a tool used for focussing one's power? We see wordless, as well as wandless magic, IIRC. But then, Hermione is correcting the pronunciation of 'Wingardium [what kind of a Latin word is that?] Leviosa', isn't she, which implies that not only the word, but the way it is uttered is important. No, I think I'll just choose to live happily with the fact that the whole lot just doesn't work when you look too closely. Eloise From Cornet83 at aol.com Mon Jun 24 13:46:48 2002 From: Cornet83 at aol.com (Cornet83 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:46:48 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Jim Dale, Stupid Americans, Hagrid's worth as a teacher Message-ID: <83.1ca58205.2a487cc8@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40260 Several people have commented on how enraged and upset they are that the American versions of the HP books have been changed and "dumbed down" for the American audience and I just thought I would put in my two cents. I agree that some things should not have been changed, such as mum to mom, but really I do think that some of it was necessary. I for one, would have been terribly confused for a while when everyone received "jumpers" for Christmas instead of sweaters, and I don't consider myself to be that culturally naive. But of course, no one likes admitting that to themselves:) I enjoy watching some British television and I absolutely love British comedies but even while watching those shows I sometimes have to stop and think, "Oh wait, what did they mean by that," and then re-evaluate the scene. But I suppose, in the end, it all depends on the person reading them. Someone who visits England and the surrounding areas frequently, or who is pretty well aquainted with British slang probably would be rather upset that the American versions were changed, but someone else (like me) who is more intelligent than a slug, just not as familiar with British sayings and so forth, wouldn't really mind the changes. I guess my point was that, in the end, does it really matter? I don't think the integrity or the story itself was jeopardized by the changes and you've got to remember that even though JKR didn't write the series for children, it was originally marketed to them. In general, most American children might have been confused. But I've been rambling, so I'll sign out. Monica (who realizes all this has been discussed and debated over and over but just had to stick in her little viewpoint) From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Mon Jun 24 15:14:35 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 15:14:35 -0000 Subject: Latin and the Founders WAS Female Founders In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40261 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "edblanning" wrote: > Rosie: > > Tessy wrote: > > > > "I have spent the last few days thinking about the four > > founders, particularly about the two women Rowena and > > Helga. My first question is: Is there anything > > stated, when Hogwarts was founded? I assumed that it was > > somewhere around 100 AD or something. But going by > > this date, I wonder how it was possible for Helga and > > Rowena to learn Latin, since this is the language > > needed for the various spells. I assume that the > > magical community was mixed with the non-magicals in > > that time, since magic was associated with the gods > > in pre-Christanity ages. Women had a high status in the > > celtic culture and most of the religious figures were > > females. But assuming this would lead to the fact > > that the celts detested the christians (save for the > > friars because there the two religions mixed) and would not > > want to learn their languages. So how did Helga and > > Rowena learn Latin?" > > Rosie replied: > > I *think* I'm correct in saying that by the time Hogwarts would > have been founded (assuming c.100AD) Britain had already been > invaded by the Romans, some time earlier; although Greek was used > for really important things, Latin was the language learnt and > taught. Only the plebs didn't know any; anyone with an education > would know Latin in Britain. In any case, as Pip says, I think > Hogwarts was founded about 1000 years later than that. > > Eloise replies: > Yes, you're correct on the latter. Both the Sorting Hat and Prof > Binns say that Hogwarts was founded over a thousand years ago. > > Just for the record, Britain, well, southern Britain, became part > of the Roman Empire in AD 43. How many people were educated enough > to know Latin is a moot point. A date in the tenth century, or > perhaps rather earlier puts the founding of Hogwarts firmly into > the Anglo-Saxon era. Or Pictish in Scotland. > > At this time, yes, the educated would know Latin (at least, after > the arrival of Christianity). As far as women went, I would suggest > that would include only the daughters of nobility, educated > privately (and not necessarily then) and nuns, also often of noble > birth. (As a matter of interest, the school my daughter is about to > move on to was founded in 604, but it didn't admit girls until > 1993!) I don't know anything about witchcraft during the period, > but I think it's unlikely that practitioners of native magic would > be Latin speakers. This is extremely arguable. Most Latin-speaking nuns were of noble birth - but not all. And literacy, or Latin speaking, were both primarily seen as job-related skills in the 10th Century (and were seen so right up to the High Middle Ages). Most people didn't learn to read simply because they had no *need* to read in their work (and the cost of books and paper made reading a *very* expensive hobby). The fact that the Hogwarts founders felt it necessary to build a school, rather than continue what must have previously been an 'apprenticeship' system, suggests to me that it was becoming obvious that literacy and Latin were required skills for high level magic. Otherwise why bother with a school? All non-literacy based crafts were taught solely by apprenticeship well into the High Middle Ages. > But I think it's a mistake to try to put Hogwarts' founding into a > Muggle historical context. We're told the founders built the > castle. > Well, castles didn't exist in Britain during the Saxon period (with > or without plumbing!)There were no large stone buildings, excepting > some churches. OK, there was the original Westminster Abbey, > sometime in the 900s (built by a Frenchman) but nothing else > substantial and certainly not in Scotland. > No, but 'built' when applied to buildings over a thousand years old tends to mean more 'built the original building on this site. We still have some of the surviving stones in that wall over there.' [grin]- after all, Hogwarts probably got bigger, some of the original parts probably gave up the fight against woodworm and the British weather after a century or three, and the only reason the Chamber of Secrets survived was likely to be the sheer number of spells protecting it. Certainly most of our Muggle 'Ancient Castles' only have some of the original bits left, sometimes started as wooden Motte-and-Bailey style constructions, and now often have modern plumbing as well. But you'd still describe them as having been 'built' by, say, William the Conqueror.:-) > The names of the founders don't ring true for the period, either. > Gryffindor seems to be of French origin, more the sort of thing > you'd get after the Norman Conquest. IIRC, Hogwarts is the oldest school of magic in Europe, and may have originally had students from all of Western Europe - the founders are described as the greatest witches and wizards of the age, not the greatest British/Irish witches and wizards. Salazar is of Portugese origin, I think? And Britain as a whole was pretty much off the beaten track in the 10th Century - a good place to hide a school. Another reason for the original 'teaching' language to have been Latin would be that the original students could not have spoken English (it didn't exist). I'm not an expert on which languages were around then, but there was not just one native language in 10th Century Britain [Even today English is *not* the native language of the whole of the British Isles - though Welsh and Gaelic speakers do generally have English as their second language]. Languages included Anglo-Saxon, Old Danish (Northern England), Gaelic and the Welsh variant of Gaelic (now Welsh). Whether Hogwarts originally covered all Western Europe or not, they would still have had to pick one language to teach in - and Latin would have been the logical choice. > > So it looks to me like we either just have accept what JKR says and > not question it too closely, or assume that already there was a > rift between magical and non-magical folks, which means that we > don't have to worry too much about how Helga and Rowena learned > their Latin. > > > On a related note, it has been suggested that Latin is used for > spells as it is a sort of lingua franka, allowing communication > between wizards of different nationalities. > > My Latin is somewhat rusty, but I would say that many of JKR's > spells aren't so much Latin, as Latin-derived. She uses some very > odd forms with no consistency. To me, she's just playing with words > in the same way she often does with names. Her Latin doesn't follow any classical rules, no, but that is consistent with 'Wizard Latin' taking a different, non-muggle route - probably moving to being solely used for spell identification at some unknown point. Medieval Latin has slightly different rules to Classical Latin, and the Latin still used by biologists to identify plants and animals has some exceedingly weird constructions as well. > We also have no evidence whatsoever that the students learn Latin, > or any other language, come to that. Again, most biologists simply learn the Latin terminology by rote these days, and wouldn't bother with the Latin language as such (though I believe a Latin 'O' level (O.W.L. equivalent) used to be compulsory for some biological degree courses as few as 30 years ago). So this may be what happens in modern Hogwarts - students just learn the spell terminology. > > No, I think I'll just choose to live happily with the fact that the > whole lot just doesn't work when you look too closely. > > Eloise Oh, I always think it's much more fun to try and make it work. [Very big grin]. Pip From kkearney at students.miami.edu Mon Jun 24 15:22:31 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 15:22:31 -0000 Subject: Book differences In-Reply-To: <3D165D24.6348A15F@pdq.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40262 Joyce wrote: > These books are British books and I do not want to read Americanized > versions of them. JKR wrote them in a particular way. They are >based on a certain way of life, of looking at the world. The >references to British life and language are part of what I and my >children love about the books. It is insulting to believe that >children can not adapt and learn new ways to learn a language they may >think they already know. I know that my children have certainly >expanded their vocabulary by reading the books in the British edition. JKR made the changes herself, though, didn't she? In which case she obviously didn't think the book was substantially changed simply by changing a few words. Although I agree that the changes may not have been necessary, I am not offended by them (with the exception of Philospher--> Sorceror, which was not changed due to language differences). The books were not "dumbed down" for the American versions; they were simply translated. In that respect, I don't see that the American versions are any different from the Spanish/other language (sorry, not exactly sure into which other languages they have been translated; living in Miami I have seen only Spanish and American) versions that have been published. An unnecessary translation for most, but not all younger children would have made an immediate connection between a jumper and a sweater, or a cupboard and a closet, for example, which do have rather different meanings in British and American English. -Corinth From lee.farley at ntlworld.com Mon Jun 24 16:00:30 2002 From: lee.farley at ntlworld.com (LD) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:00:30 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book differences In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c21b98$449db3c0$13ed6bd5@quack> No: HPFGUIDX 40263 Corinth wrote: >JKR made the changes herself, though, didn't she? In which >case she obviously didn't think the book was substantially >changed simply by changing a few words. Not as far as I remember... It was her US publishers, Scholastic, which made the changes if I'm right. The same as how the publishers in other countries made their various translations. Publishers seem to have some sort of right to edit a book if they feel it's necessary, even though it's clearly not. I'm happy that, for once, living on this side of the pond ensures we don't get bastardized crap that passes itself off as the original. It's *much* better to read the books how they were intended. -LD From plumeski at yahoo.com Mon Jun 24 16:08:04 2002 From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:08:04 -0000 Subject: Dean Thomas Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40264 A conversation I've had elsewhere has got me started thinking about Dean. I've searched the archive and it's not thrown up anything relevant (but I could be mistaken), so I thought I'd put this past everyone here in the hope that the collective wisdom of HPFGU might add some insight. I realised that we don't know very much about Dean's background. It's not until p187 of CoS that we get "Dean Thomas, who, like Harry, had grown up with Muggles". Note the comparison. It's not "Muggle-born like Hermione". By the middle of PS/SS, we know all about Harry's friends, and even about his nemesis. We know that Ron comes from an old wizarding family, that Seamus is "half-and-half", that Hermione's parents are muggle dentists and that Neville was born to a wizarding family but feared to be a squib (though we don't know the term at that stage). We know Malfoy comes from a rich pureblood family. About Dean, we know NOTHING. By the end of GoF, we've even met all their parents (in the Longbottoms' case, in the Pensieve), EXCEPT for Dean's. Dean attends the QWC, but he's Seamus's (and his witch mum's) guest. Interestingly, as well, that little tidbit about Dean is given to us by the Narrator - all the other kids get dialogue to tell us about their background. Dean's only dialogue on this subject in PS/SS is that he doesn't know anything about Quidditch, which labels him a Muggle. Yet the Narrator specifies that he was *raised* by Muggles, not that he born into a Muggle family! Although even four books down, we know nothing about his past, two facts about Dean are rammed down our throats. We're informed in each book that he's a West Ham supporter and that he's good at drawing (our attention is drawn to an item of his artwork in each book). This is a long shot, but if we assume they are his local team, Dean was raised in the East End of London (non-Londoners/non-football supporters - despite the name, West Ham is in East London, and forms part of the administrative area of Newham, one of the most run-down and impoverished areas of the UK). The Scholastic edition adds the information that he's black. A black Newham resident is a *poor* Newham resident. Now, what are the chances that he was raised .... in a Muggle orphanage? London's East End is a very stereotypical place to put orphanages, and for good reason - there are lots of children's homes in that area. It's also typical for football clubs to be involved in helping local children's homes and the like (on the one hand, it's good PR, and on the other it's an easy way to increase supporter base), so despite being poor, he'd have access to things like posters. Hmmm... do we know anyone else who was raised in a Muggle orphanage? Perhaps even the *same* Muggle orphanage, half a century ago? My head is beginning to ache from the possibilies... The next big question is what is the importance of his artistic skills? Knowing JKR, she has got *something* up her sleeve in this regard, or she wouldn't have made so certain that we'd notice it... Questions, questions, nothing but questions... -- GulPlum aka Richard, UK From alina at distantplace.net Mon Jun 24 16:16:50 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 12:16:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dean Thomas References: Message-ID: <005c01c21b9a$8cf0cca0$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40265 I agree with what you're saying, I just have one question, where did it say that Dean was black? I dont' think I noticed that reference. Alina. ----- Original Message ----- From: GulPlum This is a long shot, but if we assume they are his local team, Dean was raised in the East End of London (non-Londoners/non-football supporters - despite the name, West Ham is in East London, and forms part of the administrative area of Newham, one of the most run-down and impoverished areas of the UK). The Scholastic edition adds the information that he's black. A black Newham resident is a *poor* Newham resident. -- GulPlum aka Richard, UK --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 13/06/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Mon Jun 24 16:14:27 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:14:27 -0000 Subject: Hagrid, Dumbledore, & Second Chances (LONG) In-Reply-To: <6.2ad946e7.2a47e194@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40266 Replying quite late to Naama, Pip, and Debbie, with lots of snippage since I'm so behind (real life and all that :) I said: <<>> Naama: <<>> Now me: Well I disagree. Respectfully, of course :) Let's start with Lupin. Accepting him as a student was certainly the right decision. That was his *chance*, as you say. And I think Lupin made some rather big mistakes with his chance. No, no-one got hurt. But I'm with Hermione on this one: "That was still really dangerous! Running around in the dark with a werewolf! What if you'd given the others the slip, and bitten somebody?" (PoA, p. 355) And Lupin replies, saying that that is "A thought that still haunts me" "And there were near misses, many of them." Granted, Dumbledore didn't find out about all this til the end of PoA, years and years later. But when he did find out ? and found out that Lupin had forgotten to take his potion and could have bitten anyone the night after the Shrieking Shack ? he didn't fire him. Lupin resigns, owning up to his mistakes (but would he have done so if Snape hadn't outed him? I don't know ) Okay, on to Sirius. (I'll come back to Hagrid in a minute). I was under the impression that Snape shouted Sirius & James's involvement from the rooftops back when he was in school "Sirius Black showed he was capable of murder at the age of sixteen," he (Snape) breathed. "You haven't forgotten that, Headmaster? You haven't forgotten that he once tried to kill *me*?" "My memory is as good as it ever was, Severus," said Dumbledore quietly. (PoA, p.391) (scene in hospital wing before H&H use time-turner) That doesn't directly say that Dumbledore knew back at the time, of course, but Snape seems to be prodding Dumbledore to remember something from long ago, not a few minutes before when Black may have confessed. That's how I see it, anyway. So in my mind, when Dumbledore has Snape & Sirius shake hands in GoF, asking them to work on the same side, he's giving them a second chance to not let their animosity overtake them and cause problems for the good side (as, I think, it did in the Shack. If they had been able to get along, Pettigrew would have been less likely to get away, IMO.) I tend to see them as equal partners in the Prank so I think they both have some work to do. But again, not trying to start Prankish discussions! Okay, Hagrid. I said: <<>> And Naama said: <<< What on earth does Hagrid have to repent?! His "interestin' creature" didn't hurt anybody, remember? It was the basilisk, controlled by Riddle, that killed Myrtle. Aragog was safely tucked in his closet, a threat to nobody: "So you never - never attacked anyone?" "Never," croaked the old spider. "It would have been my instinct, but from respect of Hagrid, I never harmed a human." (CoS, p. 206) See? Hagrid has nothing to repent. He hasn't failed his second chance, because he never needed to be given a second chance. He has (presumably) carried out his job well enough to earn a promotion.>>> Me: Yup, you're right of course, that Aragog didn't hurt anyone back then. But I have to agree with Ron: "Ron gave a loud snort. Evidently, hatching Aragog in a cupboard wasn't his idea of being innocent." (CoS, p. 281) No, I don't think Hagrid deserved to be expelled. But I think he deserved some punishment. We don't have any way of knowing what would have happened, of course, but I think keeping Aragog was dangerous. You saw his attitude towards Ron & Harry (Hagrid's *friends*!): "My sons and daughters do not harm Hagrid, on my command. But I cannot deny them fresh meat, when it wanders so willingly into our midst. Goodbye, friend of Hagrid!" (CoS, p. 279) I think Hagrid's actions as a schoolboy were dangerous, even if no- one got hurt, just like I think Lupin's were. Now, we don't know that Dumbledore found out about Norbert, but that incident follows pretty much the same pattern as the Aragog one? hatching a dangerous creature that Hagrid is just *sure* won't hurt anyone. And when Norbert hurt Ron and they had to get rid of him, who took the fall? Harry and Co.! *grumbles at Hagrid, a school employee letting students take his blame* So I guess you can't count Norbert as a failed second chance, if Dumbledore didn't find out. But he *did* find out that Harry and Ron went to see Aragog. And he *did* find out that Hagrid told a stranger about Fluffy. I think Dumbledore has a blind spot about Hagrid, honestly. More on that later. ****************** Pip said; <<>> Me: I hadn't thought about this, and we haven't met any real giants, so it's hard to say. Our other part-giant doesn't seem to have the same character traits as Hagrid, though, does she? Madam Maxime knows enough to *not* admit to being half-giant. She seems to keep things pretty close to her chest, unlike Hagrid, and has a better understanding of duplicity. So I don't know. And if you are right about this, then I have to agree with Jenny: <<>> ******************* Now, Debbie, who is making me feel better about Dumbledore: <<> Me: That's a very good point; it doesn't matter how together you are, or how brilliant, if you can be swayed over to the other side easily. Very good point. Debbie again: <<> Me: Which is a Good Thing, as long as people do seem to be learning from those mistakes Lupin has, and we guess Snape has (unless you think he's still evil, of course), and we can hope Sirius & Snape will bury the hatchet But, like Debbie says: <<> *stands up to applaud Debbie* Yes! I really do think there's *something* motivating all this patience. I think Dumbledore has a lot of guilt about Tom Riddle, and Hagrid is an everyday reminder of that. He gives Hagrid chance after chance, IMO, because he feels terrible about Hagrid being expelled, and about not realizing what Riddle was sooner. Keeping him on as gamekeeper?that's one thing. But after the Fluffy incident in particular, I don't think he should be involved with any more secret war-type stuff. I just don't. I don't think he should be a teacher either, but Debbie's given me a good reason to feel better about that. I think Dumbledore has a big blind spot about Hagrid, with Tom Riddle's name on it. And that can't be a good thing. Caroline --wondering why, if Dumbledore's such a powerful wizard, he doesn't have his own Marauder's Map-type security system so he knows *exactly* who's in Hogwarts at all times From divaclv at aol.com Mon Jun 24 16:16:50 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:16:50 -0000 Subject: Separated by a common language (WAS: Jim Dale, Stupid Americans etc.) In-Reply-To: <83.1ca58205.2a487cc8@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40267 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Cornet83 at a... wrote: > Several people have commented on how enraged and upset they are that the > American versions of the HP books have been changed and "dumbed down" for the > American audience and I just thought I would put in my two cents. I agree > that some things should not have been changed, such as mum to mom, but really > I do think that some of it was necessary. > I agree that some of the changes were understandable, even necessary, for an American audience. Remember, over here we think "football" is something played by overpaid prima donnas with helmets and heavy padding, and a "jumper" is a form of sleeveless dress (Imagine the poor parents who are confronted with the question of Ron and Harry cross-dressing!). Some things do get lost in translation. On the other hand, other language changes strike me as superfluous and even counter-productive to the story. Mrs. Weasley is most definitely a "mum" not a "mom," and Draco Malfoy is best described as a "git" as opposed to other things. And I'm still irritated as heck that some bozo publisher was convinced that a) the majority of the American public would run away from any book with the word "Philosopher" in the title and b) the majority of the American public is both too stupid to know what "philosopher's stone" is and not curious enough to find out what it is if they didn't. Okay, sermon's over. Pass the plate. ~Christi, who experienced great confusion when, in reading "Bridget Jones's Diary," she saw the heroine express a desperate need for a "fag"... From ahector at postmaster.co.uk Mon Jun 24 15:42:22 2002 From: ahector at postmaster.co.uk (Allison Hector) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:42:22 +0100 Subject: Sexuality in HP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40268 An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From nplyon at yahoo.com Mon Jun 24 16:11:19 2002 From: nplyon at yahoo.com (nplyon) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:11:19 -0000 Subject: book differences - Wormtail's name In-Reply-To: <002a01c21aa0$881285c0$843468d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40270 > > Incidentally, were any Americans (as a nation) insulted that the American publishers thought no one would buy it if it had the word "Philosopher" on the cover, hence the change to Sorcerer's Stone? ] Hi all, I'm new to the group and happy to have found a place to have intelligent, literary discussions about the Harry Potter series. Forgive me if I repeat anything that's already been discussed. I'm trying to read through as many message as possible but there are thousands. I wanted to say that I am an American who was insulted by the name change in the books. I was not much of a fantasy novel type reader but even I knew what the Philospher's Stone was. I firmly believe that making the changes taints the book somewhat. I have all four in American versions and would like to purchase British versions to look at the differences. At any rate, I think the publishers were a bit insulting by implying that American children wouldn't understand that "Mummy" is the same thing as "Mommy." I love the British flavor of the novels. I've enjoyed trying to find out what things like treacle tarts are! I'm currently rereading GOF and I too noticed that Crouch referred to Pettigrew as Wormtail. That seemed strange to me as I was under the impression that these were secret names that only Potter, Black, Lupin, and Pettigrew knew. If the names were generally known, wouldn't it have been obviously to Fred and George who the creators of the Marauder's Map really were? From ntg85 at prodigy.net Mon Jun 24 16:06:55 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:06:55 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Superfluous Scene acronym In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40271 The Random Monkey, who has been locked in her room by her Evil Stepmother until it is clean, and has just escaped, runs toward TBAY. "All those theories," she gasps. "All those ships that I could've gotten in on the maiden voyage!" She runs as fast as she can, considering that the most excercise she gets is DDR marathons. She sees Dicentra: > Scratching her head, she looks at the new white lettering on the side > of the barge. GARBAGE SCOW, it reads. (Gibberish, Altogether Redundant > Blather, and Gobbledegook Everywhere! Superfluous Can(n)on Obtains > Welcome) Dicentra had hoped for something a little more elegant, like > SUPERFLUITY or EXTRANEOUS or even the ever-popular IRREGARDLESS, but > as these acronyms don't have a spell-out, they're not much good. > GARBAGE SCOW it is! "NOOOO!" moans Monkey. "The scow I've been waiting for all my life, and it's named already..." She drops to her knees and cries melodramatically. > Now, she thinks as she rolls up her sleeves. Time to get those > can(n)ons back. > > Dicentra whips her wand out of her robes and points at the can(n)ons > in the ELVIRA kayak. "Tortam Comere Tanto Habere!" she shouts. > Suddenly, both can(n)ons are back on the deck of the GARBAGE SCOW. > Pipppin and Debbie blink. The can(n)ons in the ELVIRA kayak are still > there, too. > > "What's the point?" says Pippin. "Is this your way of calling a draw?" > > "Don't be ridiculous," says Dicentra. "I won, of course. But if you > can take either of these scenes and place the crux of a speculative > theory on what you find therein, I will myself toss the can(n)on in > question into the water. But I don't think that you can. Compare >the importance of these scenes to Snape Brings Lupin the Potion, >Lupin Fails to Hurry Things Along, or Lupin's Empty Grindylow Tank. >Don't come close. Editor could have splinched the whole thing and >we'd never know it was gone." > > Pippin, uncertain of what to do now, jumps into the ELVIRA kayak and > paddles off, leaving > > --Dicentra, eager to find more can(n)ons for her scow Monkey stops bawling, since it's really pointless anyway, and walks over to Dicentra's ship. Dicentra looks at her suspiciously, which is alltogether not surprisisng, since she just had her can(n)ons almost stolen, and growls, "What do you want?" Monkey gives what she hopes is a snappy salute, and says, "Ensign Monkey, requesting permission to come aboard, now that you've done all the hard work." "What?" says Dicentra. "But... But don't you think Florence must be a person of incredible importance?" "Florence is a name as random as I am, so Bertha had something to say in the Pensieve," replies Monkey. "But... Isn't there some sinister significace to the fact that Snape said, 'I have a whole cauldronful?'" "Nope," says Monkey. "Uh... Isn't there symbolism behind Hedwig? The Weasleys? Hagrid? Madame Pomfrey?" "Uh-uh," says Monkey. "And look, I even found this cool acronym for you." UNNECESSARY: Useless, Needless Narrative Exercises Can be Explained as Superfluous; Some Action Really Yieldless. "Well..." says Dicentra. "Please hurry," says Monkey. "My arm is tired from holding this snappy salute." *************** "Random Monkey" From eleri at aracnet.com Mon Jun 24 17:42:24 2002 From: eleri at aracnet.com (CB) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:42:24 -0700 Subject: Troll in the Bathroom! Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020624103032.00ac6cf0@mail.aracnet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40272 So, in one of our 'late night talk about HP' sessions, the subject of why the Mountain Troll went into the girls bathroom came up. the predominant theory was that it could smell Hermione in there...until a little lightbulb went off in my head... Quirrel/Voldemort let the troll in, right? Which means he had to have had it under some sort of control, to get it into Hogwarts in the first place. What if the troll was headed for the Chamber of Secrets? What if there was a 'aura' of sorts about the Chamber that attracted the troll, because it felt the same as the person who had summoned it? A bit like a hound scenting it's master. Charlene From sarahlegend at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jun 24 17:16:02 2002 From: sarahlegend at yahoo.co.uk (sarahlegend) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:16:02 -0000 Subject: Book differences In-Reply-To: <000001c21b98$449db3c0$13ed6bd5@quack> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40273 LD wrote... > > . It was her US publishers, Scholastic, which > made the changes if I'm right. The same as how the publishers in other > countries made their various translations. Publishers seem to have some > sort of right to edit a book if they feel it's necessary, even though > it's clearly not. The question is, aside from changing UK to US terms are there any other significant *content* differences (like Sirius Black's vault number being omitted from the US edition of PoA)? Anyone with both editions of the books like to comment? Sarah xx From rvotaw at i-55.com Mon Jun 24 17:19:34 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 12:19:34 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Defense of Hagrid (was Re: Hagrid, Dumbledore, & Second Chances (LONG) Message-ID: <6073709.1024939174635.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40274 Well, I've followed this discussion of Hagrid and his ability (or not) to teach. I am a teacher, so I can see things from his point of view. When I'm starting an activity with my students, I warn them of any dangers before I begin. Hagrid did this, but Malfoy wasn't listening. If a student is then injured, it's their fault. Now, I know the parents will more than likely take their child's side, just as Lucius Malfoy did. I've been there. However, as long as I had given them specific directions and the child is injured because they either didn't listen or didn't follow the directions, the principal will side with me, as the teacher. Which is what Dumbledore did. Now Hagrid then getting drunk and blubbering about it was a bit childish. But he's that way sometimes, to each his own. So I think Dumbledore was right to have Hagrid as a teacher. Liike Hagrid though I do, I also think that Hagrid will be the character that dies in Book 5. To me it seems like he was created as a character that children would like, and as the books reach higher levels, the purpose of his character will cease to exist. I don't want him to die, but I think he will. With honor, I'm sure. Richelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moongirlk at yahoo.com Mon Jun 24 18:11:10 2002 From: moongirlk at yahoo.com (Kimberly Moon) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 11:11:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] HPforGrownups: Message from the Moderators In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020624181110.45430.qmail@web20420.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40275 > b. Anyone with experience forming or operating or > serving on the > Board of Directors of a non-profit corporation. I'm on the board of directors for a theater company (that just got a fantastic review for the St. Louis premier of Laramie Project - I'm almost contractually required to brag on them a little, right?). Unfortunately, that means little as far as actual knowlege of how to run a nonprofit, but I'd love to be helpful if I can, and I might be able to pick the artistic director's brain - he's an old friend and he set up the company from scratch. Let me know if I can be of help! kimberly __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From dicentra at xmission.com Mon Jun 24 18:45:49 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 18:45:49 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Superfluous Scene acronym In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40276 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "random_monkey0_0" wrote: > Monkey stops bawling, since it's really pointless anyway, and walks > over to Dicentra's ship. > > Dicentra looks at her suspiciously, which is altogether not > surprisisng, since she just had her can(n)ons almost stolen, and > growls, "What do you want?" > > Monkey gives what she hopes is a snappy salute, and says, "Ensign > Monkey, requesting permission to come aboard, now that you've done all > the hard work." "What makes you think you are fit to come aboard the intrepid GARBAGE SCOW?" challenges Dicentra. > "Florence is a name as random as I am, so Bertha had something to say > in the Pensieve," replies Monkey. Dicentra frowns. "What else do you have?" > > "There's no sinister significace to the fact that Snape said, 'I have a whole cauldronful.'" Dicentra begins to pace the deck. "Go on..." > "There is no symbolism behind Hedwig, the Weasleys, Hagrid, and Madame Pomfrey. And look, I even found this cool acronym for you. UNNECESSARY: Useless, Needless Narrative Exercises Can be Explained as Superfluous; Some Action Really Yieldless." > > "Well..." says Dicentra. > > "Please hurry," says Monkey. "My arm is tired from holding this snappy salute." > "At ease, sailor," Dicentra barks. Monkey relaxes, shaking her arm, which has fallen asleep. "Let me make a few things clear," says Dicentra, affecting Captain Bligh mannerisms. "I'm very selective about what I take aboard the GARBAGE SCOW. This can(n)on, for instance." She kicks the can(n)on marked "Harry Awakens at 4:30am." "This one belongs here because there is nothing in this scene that cannot be dispensed with. It is not rich with meaning. It does not provide definitive clues to anything. It isn't even entertaining. In short, it defies Pippin's assertion that 'Every sentence serves a purpose, whether it's to entertain, inform, persuade or confuse.' That's why I've taken it aboard." "But..." the Monkey begins. "Silence!" Dicentra shouts. Monkey cowers. "On the other hand, Snape Brings Lupin's Potion is so dense with subtext and meaning you can't wedge a knife between the cracks. The specific meaning is up for interpretation, but the scene is not irrelevant. It signals to the reader that Lupin has an unusual 'condition' that a potion can treat. It raises the question of whether Lupin has been poisoned in the later Snape Substitutes for Lupin scene. And 'I made an entire cauldronful...If you need more' has neon arrows pointing to it, saying, 'the potion is significant.' Furthermore, Snape's awkward demeanor and conversation fairly beg for investigation." Monkey looks disappointed. "But I thought this barge was for people who were sick of people finding meaning in every little thing. For people who think that things should be taken at face value and not twisted into these wild, weird-o theories that JKR obviously didn't mean." "If that's what you think, you'll need to go find Faith in her castle, over yonder," Dicentra indicates a large building at one end of the bay. "She's the one in charge of that position. She prefers stability to a flotation device. As for me, you'll never find me aiming a can(n)on at LOONy theories like LYCANTHROPE and MAGIC DISHWASHER. Even if I don't believe they're what JKR had in mind, they're clever, entertaining, and not a little enlightening. And I think Florence will show up one of these days. You wait." Monkey thinks. "I don't know about Florence, but if I find stuff that really doesn't have any meaning, like Harry Awakens at 4:30am, stuff that JKR seems to have forgotten to trim away before the final edit, stuff that will never make it into a CTMNBN or a theory... can I bring that stuff?" "Bring it on," says Dicentra, grinning. Monkey scampers away, eager to find her first useless can(n)on. --Dicentra, wondering if "UNNECESSARY GARBAGE SCOW" doesn't defeat the purpose of the barge, but who will accept the acronym anyway and find good use for it From ftah3 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 24 18:56:17 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 18:56:17 -0000 Subject: re Hagrid's fate (was Defense of Hagrid) In-Reply-To: <6073709.1024939174635.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40277 Richelle wrote: > I also think that Hagrid will be the character that dies in Book > 5. To me it seems like he was created as a character that children would like, > and as the books reach higher levels, the purpose of his character will cease > to exist. Hmm, I think you've got a good point that Hagrid's appeal so far would endear him to children; and if the books continue to evoke themes of 'growing up,' Hagrid would be a definite potential lamb to sacrifice to the deity of lost innocence. On the other hand, I think he might be developing into a role beyond the one he's played so far (friend of the kids, adult version of innocence), based on implications at the end of GoF. GoF contained discussion about the need, in light of Voldemort's efforts to return to power, to develop or cut relations with non-human magical types. I.e., cut relations with the Dementors, because they're tailor-made Voldemort allies, and leaving them in control of Azkaban is not the best idea. Mention was also made of courting the giants as allies of the good guys. Giants are typically a violent people who don't care to mix with the outside world, but Dumbledore (er, I think it was; suddenly not sure) seemed to think that they would be on the fence - as likely to side with the good as with the bad guys; he tries to convince Fudge to send a delegation to open relations with them. At the end of GoF, Dumbledore looks to be revving up to act on different fronts - is sending out a call to his old crew; has interesting secret uses for Snape. And if Dumbledore decided to try to make nice with the giants despite lack of support from the Ministry of Magic, Hagrid and the Beaubaxtons headmistress, who are both half-giant, half-wizarding human, would be logical intermediaries. If Hagrid became a diplomat to the giants, he would possibly be removed from the Hogwarts scene, which would effectively end his previous role, which depended on his interaction with Harry et al. He would then grow into another role would have long-reaching implications, and potentially require that he stay alive through the end of the series. But if he does remain in the role he has played to this point, I do agree with you, Richelle, that his days could be numbered. And I would cry if that were the case. :( I like Hagrid a lot! Mahoney From ambiradams at hotmail.com Mon Jun 24 18:59:48 2002 From: ambiradams at hotmail.com (Ambir Adams) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 11:59:48 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book differences Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40278 >From: "LD" > >Not as far as I remember... It was her US publishers, Scholastic, which >made the changes if I'm right. The same as how the publishers in other >countries made their various translations. Publishers seem to have some >sort of right to edit a book if they feel it's necessary, even though >it's clearly not. I'm happy that, for once, living on this side of the >pond ensures we don't get bastardized crap that passes itself off as the >original. It's *much* better to read the books how they were intended. Does it really matter what the differences are? I mean the same idea is getting acrossed to us. I'm an American, I have a British friend who has the British version. And not much is changed Jumper=shirt, cupbord=closet, Trainer=shoe. But it doesnt really matter to me I enjoy the story whether I read the American version or the British version. The only thing that irks me is that our publishers who translated it changed the title. I do in fact know what a philsopher is. The publishers here thought that kind of title wouldn't sell because it dosent sound exciting enough. I actually think Philsoper's Stone is a cooler title then Sorcecer's Stone. But that's just my opinion. Ryoko Blue _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From alina at distantplace.net Mon Jun 24 19:08:34 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Alina) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 15:08:34 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book differences References: Message-ID: <009701c21bb2$8a1ed400$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40279 The one reason the title change irks me is that Philosopher's Stone is an actual term not invented by Rowling but present throughout history. While sorcerer's stone is something the publishers made up. They seemed to completely ignore the fact that the term is set in human culture and invented by the author. Alina. ----- Original Message ----- From: Ambir Adams The only thing that irks me is that our publishers who translated it changed the title. I do in fact know what a philsopher is. The publishers here thought that kind of title wouldn't sell because it dosent sound exciting enough. I actually think Philsoper's Stone is a cooler title then Sorcecer's Stone. But that's just my opinion. Ryoko Blue --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.371 / Virus Database: 206 - Release Date: 13/06/2002 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From saitaina at wizzards.net Mon Jun 24 19:08:50 2002 From: saitaina at wizzards.net (Saitaina) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 12:08:50 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book differences References: <009701c21bb2$8a1ed400$96972b18@shprd.phub.net.cable.rogers.com> Message-ID: <010e01c21bb2$944e8e20$094e28d1@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 40280 Alina wrote: Actually both terms have been used in regards to the actual stone in alchemy. A great many of my science books have it as the "Sorcerer's Stone" while my reference books and websites have it as the "Philosopher's Stone". I think the word was "Americanized" long before Harry was conceived in Rowling's mind. Saitaina ***** [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From crana at ntlworld.com Mon Jun 24 19:10:12 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 20:10:12 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Troll in the Bathroom! References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020624103032.00ac6cf0@mail.aracnet.com> Message-ID: <001b01c21bb2$c4d4bc40$39b168d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40281 Charlene wrote: "So, in one of our 'late night talk about HP' sessions, the subject of why the Mountain Troll went into the girls bathroom came up. the predominant theory was that it could smell Hermione in there...until a little lightbulb went off in my head... Quirrel/Voldemort let the troll in, right? Which means he had to have had it under some sort of control, to get it into Hogwarts in the first place. What if the troll was headed for the Chamber of Secrets? What if there was a 'aura' of sorts about the Chamber that attracted the troll, because it felt the same as the person who had summoned it? A bit like a hound scenting it's master." Oh - was it the same bathroom as Myrtle's? Very interesting point if so. I actually don't remember, although it seems strange that Myrtle wasn't annoying HRH as they fought the troll if so. Maybe she had been flushed down to the lake? Even if it was the same bathroom... maybe it was just headed for nice tasty Hermione-flesh... maybe it can smell people! Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Mon Jun 24 19:16:37 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 19:16:37 -0000 Subject: Defense of Hagrid (was Re: Hagrid, Dumbledore, & Second Chances (LONG) In-Reply-To: <6073709.1024939174635.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40282 Richelle wrote: <<>> ::waves to fellow teacher:: The Draco Incident is one of the few times that I *don't* fault Hagrid. You're right, he did exactly what he should have, as a teacher. Like Jenny, I have a problem with his behavior afterwards. Hagrid completely scrapped his curriculum in favor of teaching flobberworms. Which, apparently, don't require a whole lot of teaching. It reminds me of a situation I was in last year. A new student transferred into my class and took exception with my discipline plan. She threw a book (literally) at me when she was assigned silent lunch for breaking rules. It would have been wrong for me, the teacher, to cave into that and remove silent lunch from my consequences or to tiptoe around her in the future. I can't let a student scare me off; and that's what Hagrid did, IMHO. But I fault Dumbledore as well, for assigning someone who is not a fully trained wizard, much less trained as a teacher, to teach. I also *really* fault Hagrid for raising Norbert and letting students solve his problems with the dragon for him. And not standing up for those students when they are given detentions, lose more house points than anyone ever has before, and are socially ostracized for it. That's not fitting behavior for a school employee, IMHO, even if he isn't a full-fledged teacher at this point. Richelle again: <> Me: Yup, I think he's a goner. In large part because we've already learned *so much* about his backstory, whereas we still have a lot to learn about other characters. I personally think this mission with the giants is the last useful thing Hagrid can do as an alive character; then he will be more useful dead, provoking character-and- relationship-building situations for Harry & co. Although I will be sad for Harry when he goes. Because he loves Harry, and Harry loves him, and wish I could like him... but I just can't. *sigh* Caroline From mbsilvana at yahoo.com Mon Jun 24 19:27:25 2002 From: mbsilvana at yahoo.com (mbsilvana) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 19:27:25 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter Tarot? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40283 I'm wondering if Anyone has done a Harry Potter Tarot deck yet? I haven't seen one... if there is, can I have the link? I've started to work on one, and I'd like some help from a true HP fan- I've only read the books about five times each, so... compared to some people, I'm just a newbie. My AIM name is saffirsama, and just IM me, even if an away message is up- I'm probably around. I need to ask questions about HP characters, and things (opinion based), so interaction would really help. No knowledge of tarot is nessessary, but of course it's nice. Also, I'd LOVE if there was an inspired fan artist out there who's like to DRAW the cards... I can do the research (which, for a good deck, can take awhile- I plan on using quotes, only using each character once, showing alternate character possibilities, reversed meanings, ect- I tend to be very thorough), that'd be great... if not, I'm gonna scour the net and ask existing fan artists for their permission to use photoshop to alter some of their work to create a deck.... Anyway, tarot is highly subjective, so.... there's more than one right way to go about this. I'm starting with the major Arcana, and might do the minor Arcana if I feel inspired. Anyway, would people actually like to READ this? Or are there any other tarot lovers who's like to help? ~Aishuu From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Mon Jun 24 19:51:25 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 19:51:25 -0000 Subject: Tom Riddle, well-liked Slytherin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40284 Several people here doubted that Tom Riddle had really been in Slytherin. Rowen Avalon pointed out that cannon says he was, with Ron telling Harry that Slytherin was the house "You-know-you" was in. And, Snickerdoodle noted that in SS, Hagrid tells "there wasn't a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin, You-Know-Who was one" Ok, so there's clear evidence that Tom Riddle was in Slytherin. This has implications for a question that has been asked here before - did Slytherin House always have its current horrendous reputation, or did it get that reputation during Voldemort's first reign? It seems to me that its bad reputation must be recent. Riddle says he had a good reputation (model student, etc) and that this was why he was able to place the blame for Myrtle's death on Hagrid. With the current "Slytherin House = Evil" belief that is prevalent, he would have had a much harder time escaping suspicion. But, what about the fact that Dumbledore says few people know that Tom Riddle became Voldemort? How do Hagrid and Ron even know that Voldemort was in Slytherin? Hagrid, of course, knew Riddle personally, but it's not clear whether he knew that Riddle later became Voldemort. It's not likely that Ron knew of the Riddle - Voldemort connection. The Weasleys are perplexed when Harry mentions Riddle; in fact, Dumbledore's comment ("Very few people know that Lord Voldemort was once called Tom Riddle") is addressed to them. So, how does Ron know that Voldemort was a Slytherin? Also, *why* does Slytherin have a reputation for being evil? Does the whole Wizarding World know that Voldemort was a Slytherin, and if so, how do they know this without knowing that Voldemort was called Tom Riddle at school? (Of course, even if the Wizarding World mostly didn't know that Voldemort had been in Slytherin, they might still think Slytherin House was evil, because so many suspected Death Eaters were Slytherins.) A comment on the fact that brave is capitalized when Riddle describes himself as "parentless, but so BRAVE." Perhaps JKR is saying that Riddle, like Harry, had a choice of Gryffindor or Slytherin houses. A few pages later, Dumbledore talks about that many dangerous transformations Voldemort underwent. Voldemort may be ever-so-evil, but he's not a wimp. So, the Sorting Hat might have had trouble placing him, as it did with Harry. Now, as for the "Voldemort's sexuality" thread, I don't even want to think about it. (Snake lips! Ggahh!) -- Judy Serenity, who is still a List Elf, but who hadn't posted to the main list in ages From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Mon Jun 24 19:56:24 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 15:56:24 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dean Thomas Message-ID: <160.facb066.2a48d368@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40285 In a message dated 6/24/2002 12:15:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, alina at distantplace.net writes: << I agree with what you're saying, I just have one question, where did it say that Dean was black? I dont' think I noticed that reference. >> In PS/SS, during the sorting ceremony, it's said: "Thomas, Dean" a Black boy even taller than Ron, joined Harry at the Gryffindor table. *Chelsea* From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Mon Jun 24 20:24:39 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 20:24:39 -0000 Subject: Hagrid, Dumbledore, & Second Chances In-Reply-To: <6.2ad946e7.2a47e194@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40286 Ok, I'm weighing in on the "Does Dumbledore give out too many second chances?" thread. Debbie (elfundeb at a...) said: > I can excuse Dumbledore's actions, sort of, on the basis that he has > a dual role - he's both headmaster and leader of the anti-Voldemort > resistance... Yes, Dumbledore's actions make much more sense if you think of him as primarily the "general" in the anti-Voldemort fight, as opposed to primarily a school headmaster. I also want to point out that JKR portrays Dumbledore as being omniscient (all-knowing), or very close to it. He has the Pensieve. He knows Trelawney's predictions, and knows which ones are accurate. And, he has Fawkes, who appears to be able to tell who is evil is who is not. Plus, of course, he has his own knowledge and wisdom. It is strongly implied that Dumbledore can tell that his actions will have the desired effect, although it's not always clear how. For example, how did he know where to put the Mirror or Erised so that Harry could find it? What makes him so confident in Harry's abilities to defeat Riddle/Voldemort? (etc, etc) So, I think the way JKR has set up the story, we are supposed to believe that Dumbledore's staffing decisions are right. We may not like this aspect of JKR's writing, but Dumbledore's judgment is more-or-less unquestionable within the Potterverse. (In some ways, JKR has set up Dumbledore as a God-like figure, although I'd say Voldemort is much more clearly Satanic than Dumbledore is God-like.) Now, let me defend a few other characters. First, Lupin. I don't blame Lupin for leaving the Shack as a student; I blame Sirius. Well, OK, as a major fan of Snape, I'm not favorably inclined towards Sirius, so maybe that's no completely fair. Still, knowing their personalities, isn't it likely that Sirius and James were the ones who wanted to leave the Shack, not Lupin? Lupin had been trying to hide his lycantropy from everyone, even them; why would he leave and risk exposure? I can just see Sirius or James saying "Come on, Remus, it's boring spending all night in the Shack; let's get out and run around a little." And Remus, knowing all the risks his friends had taken to become animagi, would feel obligated to go along. As for taking the job as DADA prof, what choice did he have? He wasn't just impoverished and threadbare, he was *starving*. What's he going to say: "Hmm, there's no one to teach DADA, and omniscient Dumbledore thinks I'd be good for the job; I never bit anyone before, and I'm even less likely to now that there's the Wolfbane potion -- nah, I'll just say no, and starve to death." Now, on to defending Hagrid. I winced when he was made a teacher. (I am also a teacher, although on the college level, not on the secondary level.) Still, I think he's a good *person*, just not a good teacher. He's very loving, which I think is what JKR sees as his best trait. My husband had an interesting theory about Hagrid's childishness -- maybe half-giants aren't fully mature until they're 100, or something. This could explain Madame Maxine's greater maturity; she may be much older. I do think that Hagrid's personality is probably due to his giant blood. Another possibility why Madame Maxine doesn't have the same peronality traits is that when two dissimilar parents breed, the offspring are highly variable. In other words, some half-giants might have a human personality, some might have a giant personality, and some might be in between. As for what will happen to Hagrid -- yes, I think he is definitely going as an emisary to the giants. And yes, I think he will die. I also *fear* that Fleur will be the new Care of Magical Creatures prof (or the new DADA prof). And, I'll dislike her as a teacher much more than I ever disliked Hagrid. -- Judy From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Mon Jun 24 20:32:18 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 20:32:18 -0000 Subject: Dean Thomas In-Reply-To: <160.facb066.2a48d368@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40287 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Chelsea2162 at a... wrote: > In a message dated 6/24/2002 12:15:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > alina at d... writes: > > << I agree with what you're saying, I just have one question, where > did it say that Dean was black? I dont' think I noticed that > >> reference. > >> Chelsea replied: > In PS/SS, during the sorting ceremony, it's said: "Thomas, Dean" a Black > Dean" a Black boy even taller than Ron, joined Harry at the > Gryffindor table. > > *Chelsea* Not in the UK paperback PS, it doesn't. That line is only in the US editions of SS. I don't remember JKR ever specifically saying that Dean or Lee were black in the UK PS - though I have to say that there must be at least some hints in the text somewhere, as I always assumed Dean Thomas and Lee Jordan were both black kids. (I think with Lee it's the description of his hair being in dreadlocks, which is mostly (not exclusively) a black hairstyle in the UK). Perhaps the hints given are UK specific, so the U.S. publishers thought it needed to be spelt out? JKR doesn't seem to like 'labelling' students or teachers as a particular race or colour. She seems to just let readers infer it from students/teachers names and possibly some bit of description (like Lee's hair). I suppose this is probably because she wants us to explore the WW's labelling - Slytherin or Gryffindor, Pure-blood or Mudblood - instead of carrying over the Muggle ideas. Pip From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Mon Jun 24 20:40:36 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:40:36 -0400 Subject: A superfluous point Message-ID: <5FE84AA8.79A22372.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40288 Pippin originally wrote, in connection with the analysis of minor clues: "Every sentence serves a purpose, whether it's to entertain, inform, persuade or confuse." and Dicentra bridled (what does this look like? I'm not sure if I've seen anyone bridle IRL - could you do one of your text diagrams, Dicey?). So how could we possibly demonstrate that a sentence does not entertain? If we think that a sentence is completely superfluous, does that mean that it has fulfilled JKR's purpose to confuse us? How uninformative does a statement of 'fact' have to be, to not inform? (Incidentally I think JKR does start to build Amos Diggory's character in the Portkey chapter - his remark about Harry falling off his broom is nicely done.) IOW, I think Pippin's list of purposes is so all-embracing that I'm not sure it, er, serves any purpose. 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 judyshapiro at earthlink.net Mon Jun 24 21:19:36 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 21:19:36 -0000 Subject: Dean Thomas In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40289 I'm frankly quite confused about Dean Thomas, and I'm wondering if someone could clear it up. Here is the US version of his introduction. After Harry sits down and looks at the High Table, the next US passage reads: "And now there were only three people left to be sorted. 'Thomas, Dean," a Black boy even taller than Ron, joined Harry at the Gryffindor table." This passage is rather flint-y: after saying there were three more people to be sorted, it then mentions *four* people: "Turpin, Lisa" and "Blaise, Zabini", as well as Dean and Ron. So, in the British version, is Dean not mentioned at all during the Sorting Hat scene in Book One? I had assumed that everyone sorted after Harry was mentioned by name, but another possibility is that Harry was too relieved by getting sorted into Gryffindor to notice the students who were sorted right after him. Does the UK version say anything to introduce Dean, other than mentioning his sports posters? (I assume Dean is one of Harry's roommates in both versions.) The idea that Dean is from an orphanage -- the same orphanage as Tom Riddle -- sounds quite possible. I'd love to see Dean be more than just a superfluous filler character. Judy, on a roll From crana at ntlworld.com Mon Jun 24 20:00:52 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 21:00:52 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Tom Riddle, well-liked Slytherin, actually rambling about Dumbledore References: Message-ID: <000e01c21bb9$d88fd600$39b168d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40290 Judy said: "But, what about the fact that Dumbledore says few people know that Tom Riddle became Voldemort? How do Hagrid and Ron even know that Voldemort was in Slytherin? Hagrid, of course, knew Riddle personally, but it's not clear whether he knew that Riddle later became Voldemort. It's not likely that Ron knew of the Riddle - Voldemort connection. The Weasleys are perplexed when Harry mentions Riddle; in fact, Dumbledore's comment ("Very few people know that Lord Voldemort was once called Tom Riddle") is addressed to them. So, how does Ron know that Voldemort was a Slytherin?" On a random note... why doesn't Dumbledore give Harry a little talk on who he's up against? Voldemort 101, maybe? At the moment, he seems to be picking up random tit bits from Hagrid/Ron/anyone... wouldn't it be better to get a briefing from Commander Dumbledore? Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nplyon at yahoo.com Mon Jun 24 20:31:55 2002 From: nplyon at yahoo.com (nplyon) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 20:31:55 -0000 Subject: The Voldemort-Potter Connection Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40291 Hi all, Hopefully this is not a topic that has been thoroughly discussed yet. If it is, please let me know and I will check through the archives. Has anyone else thought that this whole situation with Voldemort and the Potters is strange? Obviously there are things about Harry's past that we don't yet know but the more I think about the whole thing the more puzzled I am. Why exactly was Voldemort after the Potters? It seems like they must have had some significance for him to go to such trouble to uncover their whereabouts and to attempt to murder the whole family. Also, as I reread COS, it seemed really strange to me that Tom Riddle makes a point of telling Harry that they look a lot alike. Now, I think it highly unlikely that it's one of those Luke-I-am-your-father situations. Rowling also points out how very much Harry looks like his dad. Are they related somehow? My husband has never read the books and has only seen the movie and when I mentioned this to him he made an interesting suggestion. What if Voldemort is Harry's grandfather? Oooh, it's so fun to speculate! Anyway, I really believe there must be something to the fact that Harry resembles Tom Riddle. I'd be interested to hear what others think about this. Nicole From nmfry at hotmail.com Mon Jun 24 20:46:12 2002 From: nmfry at hotmail.com (N Fry) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 20:46:12 +0000 Subject: race [book differences?] (WAS Dean Thomas and Re: book differences - Lilies) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40292 rosie wrote: >I noticed from the differences list that they introduced Dean Thomas >in the Sorting Ceremony in the US edition too, and described him as >black. Does anyone know if this was because someone decided he should >be introduced earlier? Or was it (as I fear) because they >thought, "Oh no, we better point out that some random characters are >black to be more inclusive, even though we don't both pointing out >when people are white, and even though it has no bearing whatsoever >on the story."? I'm all for books representing the whole of >society... but I think it looks very clumsy to just point out that >the odd character is black, or Asian, or whatever, and just assume >that obviously everyone else is white; it looks as if it's just been >done so that the publishers can go "Look! We had a single >mother/black child/wheelchair user" etc. I wondered about this, also. The character that really caught my attention, though, was Angelina Johnson. In the US hardcover GoF, when she comes to breakfast after putting her name in the goblet (Ch 16 pg 261), she is described as a "tall Black girl." I don't have my other books with me to double check, but I don't remember her being described this way in any of the other books. Is this true of the UK editions, too, or is it yet another difference in the American versions? If it's so important that we know her race (otherwise, why mention it?), then why wait until the fourth book before telling us. It's not as if Angelina was some minor character that Harry occasionally passed in the halls, but didn't really know. She was a member of his house and a fellow teammate on Gryffindor's Quidditch team. Do the books point out the races of other characters? I only seem to remember references to the black students (All three of them, I think - Isn't Lee Jordan black? I'm suddenly drawing a blank...) Meanwhile, some people have suggested that Parvati and Padma Patil might be Indian, based on the Hindu inspirations for their names. Cho Chang's name suggests an Oriental background. And yet, I don't remember any passages stating that "Harry had a crush on Cho, a pretty Asian girl." It just seems a bit awkward to specifically draw attention to the black students, but not to mention any other races. Slightly OT - I suppose if Parvati and Padma are Indian and it is mentioned in later books, that fact will be another difference between the US and UK versions. The publishers, who are *so* concerned about our poor, clueless little American kids becoming confused, will surely be certain to change that description: "P & P, who were Indian, as in they were from the country of India, not Indian in the American sense that they were Native Americans..." (and, yes, that was written sarcastically) ~ Nik (who would *gladly* start counting down the days until OotP comes out, if only they would announce a release date. grrrr....) _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Mon Jun 24 21:51:55 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 21:51:55 -0000 Subject: Dean Thomas In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40293 Judy wrote: > So, in the British version, is Dean not mentioned at all during the > Sorting Hat scene in Book One? Yes, I believe that is the case. It is his insertion that makes the passage seem flinty in the US version. > Does the UK version say > anything to introduce Dean, other than mentioning his sports posters? > (I assume Dean is one of Harry's roommates in both versions.) I don't know for sure, but I think that there is just that extra sentence inserted: otherwise the two versions are the same as far as Dean is concerned. Unlike Pip, I did not discern from what is in the UK version that Dean is black. > > The idea that Dean is from an orphanage -- the same orphanage as Tom > Riddle -- sounds quite possible. I'd love to see Dean be more than > just a superfluous filler character. > Didn't Riddle buy his diary in the Vauxhall Bridge Road? If so, I think it unlikely that he would have been on his way from Kings Cross or Diagon Alley to an orphanage in West Ham. Though of course he could have been based in West Ham or nearby and had other reasons to be in that area. David, who thinks that having US 'translations' gives the series a certain mystique: American fans can graduate to the 'original text', while Brits can see if the (JKR-approved) translations shed light on the original. From Ali at zymurgy.org Mon Jun 24 21:52:29 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 21:52:29 -0000 Subject: Book Differences - the future Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40294 I understand why the US Publishers decided to "Americanise" the HP books in the beginning. But now that Harry Potter is, err, quite popular, surely its time for a rethink, surely now the American Public could accept the "real" thing? I actually think that the average US HP reader would have no more difficulty accepting the term "trainer" than the average Brit would "sneaker". Most words can be easily understood by their context. I agree that there is a case for changing words that have a different meaning in the two countries. It might cause cultural misunderstandings if say Harry & co decided to try smoking and had a "fag" each, but then by book 5 perhaps even that could be coped with! The one thing that I guess should still be changed is the spelling which could get confusing. The more "American" I read, the more I risk spelling words where we Brits use "s"s with "z"s, although I always seem to remember to put my "u"s in the "right" places! On a slightly different note, I think it was Ambir who asked "Does it really matter what the differences are?" Perhaps I'm too much of a LOON but I like things to feel "authentic". Cultural interchange is fairly onesided across the Pond - which given the size of the 2 countries is only to be expected - but I believe that HP represents a real opportunity for the average American Punter to experience "British" English. As far as I can tell the current "Americanisation" of HP creates a kind of bastardised-British which an average reader might misconstrue as the "real" thing. Also, as has been noted many of the changes seem to be less translation and more interpretation. If these changes have really been agreed as "better"; then surely later UK versions should have similar changes made. Until they do, I can only think that the UK versions are what JKR intended, and intends. Ali who would be happy for OoP in any format, "British" or "American" From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Mon Jun 24 21:54:01 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 21:54:01 -0000 Subject: Dean Thomas In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40295 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" wrote: Judy wrote: > I'm frankly quite confused about Dean Thomas, and I'm wondering if > someone could clear it up. Here is the US version of his > introduction. After Harry sits down and looks at the High Table, > the next US passage reads: "And now there were only three people > left to be sorted. 'Thomas, Dean," a Black boy even taller than > Ron, joined Harry at the Gryffindor table." This passage is rather > flint-y: after saying there were three more people to be sorted, it > then mentions *four* people: "Turpin, Lisa" and "Blaise, Zabini", > as well as Dean and Ron. > Ok, here is the (flint-less) British version (UK paperback, Bloomsbury, p.91) After Harry sits down an looks at the High Table, the next UK passage reads: "And now there were only three people left to be sorted. 'Turpin, Lisa' became a Ravenclaw and then it was Ron's turn. He was pale green by now. Harry crossed his fingers under the table and a second later the hat had shouted 'GRYFFINDOR!'. Harry clapped loudly with the rest as Ron collapsed into the chair next to him. 'Well done, Ron, excellent,' said Percy Weasley pompously across Harry as 'Zabini, Blaise' was made a Slytherin. Professor McGonagall rolled up her scroll and took the Sorting Hat away." > I had assumed that everyone sorted > after Harry was mentioned by name, but another possibility is that > Harry was too relieved by getting sorted into Gryffindor to notice > the students who were sorted right after him. I think that's the assumption, as we jump straight from 'Potter, Harry' to 'Turpin, Lisa'. Dean doesn't get mentioned at all. > Does the UK version say anything to introduce Dean, > other than mentioning his sports posters? > (I assume Dean is one of Harry's roommates in both versions.) The sentence introducing Dean is on p. 107: "Ron had already had a big argument with Dean Thomas, who shared their dormitory, about football. Ron couldn't see what was exciting about a game with only one ball where no one was allowed to fly. Harry had caught Ron prodding Dean's poster of West Ham football team, trying to make the players move." > > The idea that Dean is from an orphanage -- the same orphanage as > Tom Riddle -- sounds quite possible. I'd love to see Dean be more > than just a superfluous filler character. If he is from the same children's home/orphanage as Tom Riddle he obviously has a much happier time there; he never seems to stay at Hogwarts for the Christmas or Easter holidays. Or he might turn out to be a contrast to Harry - someone raised by supportive Muggle foster parents, who he gets on well with, and who were delighted when he got into Hogwarts. Pip (Squeak) From lee.farley at ntlworld.com Mon Jun 24 21:57:01 2002 From: lee.farley at ntlworld.com (LD) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:57:01 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dean Thomas In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000401c21bca$12781ac0$bbe96bd5@quack> No: HPFGUIDX 40296 Judy wrote: >I'm frankly quite confused about Dean Thomas, and I'm wondering if >someone could clear it up. Here is the US version of his >introduction. After Harry sits down and looks at the High Table, the >next US passage reads: "And now there were only three people left to >be sorted. 'Thomas, Dean," a Black boy even taller than Ron, joined >Harry at the Gryffindor table." This passage is rather flint-y: after >saying there were three more people to be sorted, it then mentions >*four* people: "Turpin, Lisa" and "Blaise, Zabini", as well as Dean >and Ron. As far as I can make out, the Ron thats mentioned in that short passage is Ron Weasley, who had already been sorted by the time it was Dean's turn. It's odd how they saw fit to explicitly spell out the fact that he was black. Maybe I'm being overly cynical here, but perhaps Scholastic thought they needed to make sure that the Potterverse represented a diverse cross-section of humanity, and doesn't discriminate against anyone. I'm surprised they didn't add "Turpin, Lisa was next, a disabled girl in a Wheelchair. She didn't need to sit on the stool, because she's always sitting down. Because she's disabled. And having disabled people is good, and means we can't be seen as evil. Yep." > >Judy, on a roll > -LD, who is now off to search for cannons for that new garbage scour thingy From dicentra at xmission.com Mon Jun 24 22:16:44 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:16:44 -0000 Subject: A superfluous point (with a touch of TBAY) In-Reply-To: <5FE84AA8.79A22372.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40297 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., dfrankiswork at n... wrote: > Pippin originally wrote, in connection with the analysis of minor clues: > > "Every sentence serves a purpose, whether it's to entertain, inform, persuade or confuse." > > and Dicentra bridled (what does this look like? I'm not sure if I've seen anyone bridle IRL - could you do one of your text diagrams, Dicey?). I think the term I used was "bristled." It looks like this: '|'\"./<<-|>>-\\ <|>>=|==>-->\,,/|<, > So how could we possibly demonstrate that a sentence does not entertain? If I don't dig it, it doesn't entertain. :D >If we think that a sentence is completely superfluous, does that mean that it has fulfilled JKR's purpose to confuse us? No. I think Pippin uses "confuse" to refer to misdirection, wherein a seemingly insignificant detail turns out to be important later on. In the scene where Ron takes Scabbers to Diagon Alley for some tonic, for example, Harry observes that "the witch's eyes moved from Scabbers's tattered left ear to his front paw, which had a toe missing, and tutted loudly." That little parenthetical "which had a toe missing" looks for all the world like a superfluous statement, but it's the key to the whole mystery. On the other hand, the rats playing jump-rope in their cages seems important, but it apppears it isn't at all. (It is entertaining, though.) When I say that Harry Awakens at 4:30am is superfluous, I mean that it looks like something JKR wrote as part of her first draft (first drafts tend to be lousy with superfluous stuff) and forgot to delete. Or it's just a filler bridge for clearing one's palate between scenes, which doesn't fulfil Pippin's criteria. It seems to just be... there. It never gets picked apart as a clue to something, it doesn't prefigure anything, it doesn't DO anything but get Harry up early and make him wait for the kitchen to start serving breakfast. It's one of those things that *would* happen in real life, but that you'd edit out were you writing a biography or something. >How uninformative does a statement of 'fact' have to be, to not inform? This depends on how dense you want your prose to be. In 19th-century novels, the authors described every scenic element in detail so dense it would choke a horse. If a scene like that were in HP, I'd have it aboard my GARBAGE SCOW faster than you can say "Quidditch." Much of it would be "irrelevant" because it would call too much attention to itself without forwarding the plot, clarifying the characters, or providing clues. In HP, we like the idea (well, some of us do) that JKR's prose is dense not with irrelevant detail but with Meaning--that we can go ahead and assume that her word choice is deliberate, not by how pretty it sounds but by how much it contributes to the overall thematic and dramatic action. >(Incidentally I think JKR does start to build Amos Diggory's character in the Portkey chapter - his remark about Harry falling off his broom is nicely done.) Hey, Cindy put that can(n)on aboard the barge. Take it up with her. > IOW, I think Pippin's list of purposes is so all-embracing that I'm not sure it, er, serves any purpose. It does if you're characterizing JKR's prose as thematically and dramatically dense, purposeful, and tightly woven. Contrast Pippin's statement with your average hack-job grocery-store dime-a-dozen novel, where you're getting maybe two revisions past the original draft. Those novels are rife with superfluity. Ironically enough, I declared Harry Awakens at 4:30am superfluous with a considerable amount of dismay. I LIKE the idea that Pippin's statement is universally true of the HP series. But now that I've got myself a ship with can(n)ons aboard, I have to defend it, don't I? --Dicentra From rvotaw at i-55.com Tue Jun 25 00:35:27 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 19:35:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Voldemort-Potter Connection References: Message-ID: <024401c21be1$02b800c0$e1a2cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 40298 Nicole writes: > Has anyone else thought that this whole situation with Voldemort and > the Potters is strange? Obviously there are things about Harry's > past that we don't yet know but the more I think about the whole Yes, I sure do! I was about to post a message this evening, and read my email first to find your post. Well, I for one find it strange that ALL of Harry's relatives (except Aunt Petunia, Uncle Vernon, and Dudley) are dead. And he has never seen a picture of any of them. He clearly states (thinks to himself rather) while looking in the Mirror of Erised that he is seeing his family for the first time. Now, we know that Aunt Petunia despised her sister Lily. So I assume she's destroyed all pictures of her? Her own sister? What about their parents? Dead, but how? Natural causes? Or something else? Where are all their pictures? The Dursleys seem quite fond of pictures (at least of their precious Dudley), isn't it strange that there isn't at least one picture of Harry's grandparents around? > thing the more puzzled I am. Why exactly was Voldemort after the > Potters? It seems like they must have had some significance for him > to go to such trouble to uncover their whereabouts and to attempt to > murder the whole family. Remember, he went with the intentions to kill James and Harry. Or why else would he have told Lily repeatedly to "stand aside." What was it about Lily that made him hesitate? Hmm. . . > Also, as I reread COS, it seemed really strange to me that Tom Riddle > makes a point of telling Harry that they look a lot alike. Now, I Good point. I hadn't noticed that before actually. They can't look THAT much alike because Harry looks so much like his dad, so maybe Tom Riddle was hinting at something else. > think it highly unlikely that it's one of those Luke-I-am-your-father > situations. Rowling also points out how very much Harry looks like > his dad. Are they related somehow? My husband has never read the Ah, good. Someone agrees with me. :) To give you my theory point blank, I think that Tom Riddle had a child with a muggle (whether adulterous or not, I don't know, given I don't know the ages of Lily and Petunia) and that child is Lily. The ages work out perfectly. Anybody have a guess at how old Lily is? Petunia? Would Lily have been in Hogwarts at the time that Voldemort "went bad?" (about 20 years before book one, according to Hagrid) Could her name have even been changed to protect her? Or could she have never even known who her real father was? Perhaps she was raised as Petunia's full sister and no one (other than her mother and maybe a few select others) knew otherwise. My only J.K. Rowling support for all of this (other than deductive reasoning from the four books and my imagination) is this: In a Scholastic author interview last year, J.K. Rowling was asked flat out "Is Harry related to Voldemort?" A simple no would have sufficed, right? Her answer? (probably not an exact quote, but close) "Well, that would make it a bit Star Wars wouldn't it?" There you go. She clearly (to me anyway) evaded the question, changed the subject, and hoped everyone would simply say "oh, that can't be it." But to me it leaves the door open! Okay, I've gone on long enough. Comments? Richelle From hexicon at yahoo.com Tue Jun 25 01:51:27 2002 From: hexicon at yahoo.com (Hexicon) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 01:51:27 -0000 Subject: Quirrell's "death" in PS/SS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40299 Hi: Longtime lurker, first-time poster. Was re-reading PS/SS recently and something struck me: do we really know that Quirrell is dead? In PS/SS 17, Dumbledore says "[Voldemort] left Quirrell to die." This isn't the same thing as saying, "Voldemort killed Quirrell," or "Quirrell died when Voldemort fled his body," especially given the precision of JKR's prose. You can "leave someone to die" without its resulting in the person's death. Are there any other canon references to Quirrell's death? (Sorry if this has been discussed before.) Hexicon From plumeski at yahoo.com Tue Jun 25 02:05:14 2002 From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 02:05:14 -0000 Subject: race [book differences?] / Dean Thomas-Tom Riddle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40300 rosie wrote: > The character that really caught my attention, > though, was Angelina Johnson. In the US hardcover GoF, when she comes to > breakfast after putting her name in the goblet (Ch 16 pg 261), she is > described as a "tall Black girl." I don't have my other books with me to > double check, but I don't remember her being described this way in any of > the other books. Quite right. That's the only time her ethnicity is mentioned. > Is this true of the UK editions, too, or is it yet another difference in the > American versions? It's there in the UK edition as well (page 230). > If it's so important that we know her race (otherwise, > why mention it?), then why wait until the fourth book before telling us. > It's not as if Angelina was some minor character that Harry occasionally > passed in the halls, but didn't really know. She was a member of his house > and a fellow teammate on Gryffindor's Quidditch team. Most of the times Angelina is mentioned are during matches. This time, the Narrator introduces her to us, and so perhaps this is the first time JKR has had the opportunity to mention the fact non- obtrusively. I doubt any character's racial makeup actually has a lot to do with the plot but I suspect that by Book Four, JKR had had a few comments more than she'd have liked about the fact that on the whole, her characters at least appear to be "too white". As one of the morals of the books is that purity of blood (or lack of the "right" blood) is irrelevant, she may well be trying to underline the fact that Muggle ethnicity is irrelevant to the wizarding world. Although, perhaps interestingly, we've not had any non-white Slytherins yet... Also, this goes back to Dean Thomas. Despite being Harry's roommate, we know nothing about him to date (UK readers don't even have the statement that he's black), so I assume there's more to come. Under the circumstances, not having anything about Angelina isn't all that strange... > Do the books point out the races of other characters? I only seem to > remember references to the black students (All three of them, I think - > Isn't Lee Jordan black? I'm suddenly drawing a blank...) >From recollection, he's not specifically stated to be black, but he is described as having dreadlocks. Whilst objectively white people could have dreadlocks, it's a rarity and it can therefore be assumed that he's black. Meanwhile, some > people have suggested that Parvati and Padma Patil might be Indian, based on > the Hindu inspirations for their names. "Patil" is a bit of a giveaway. :-) I have no idea what the Indian population is like in the USA, but over here (and especially in very Asian areas like the one I live in), the Patils and Patels are all over the place, anmd one doesn't need to think twice about where they're from. :-) Cho Chang's name suggests an > Oriental background. And yet, I don't remember any passages stating that > "Harry had a crush on Cho, a pretty Asian girl." Strangely, another linguistic difference. :-) The immediate interpretation of "Asian" in the UK would be Indian/Pakistani. Chinese/Korean/Vietnamese (and that general area) = Oriental, Japanese = Japanese. It's probably got something to do with our colonial past. >It just seems a bit awkward > to specifically draw attention to the black students, but not to mention any > other races. The others have fairly obvious names (Seamus Finnigan could have one ethnic origin and no other!) :-) so as there aren't any obviously "black" surnames, the characters' ethnicity needs to be mentioned. As it happens, I personally always assumed Angelina to be black simply because I've known about half a dozen Johnson families, and they've all been black. :-) > "P & P, who were Indian, as in they were from the country > of India, not Indian in the American sense that they were Native > Americans..." (and, yes, that was written sarcastically) Why do I get a cold shiver down my spine fearing that Scholastic would be *extremely* likely to say something *just* like that? davewhitley said: > Didn't Riddle buy his diary in the Vauxhall Bridge Road? If so, I > think it unlikely that he would have been on his way from Kings > Cross or Diagon Alley to an orphanage in West Ham. Though of course > he could have been based in West Ham or nearby and had other > reasons to be in that area. Interesting. I'd not thought about that one. Assuming that JKR doesn't just throw that address into the mix without a reason... I used to live in that area and I'm trying to think what's there, or, more to the point, what would have been there in the mid 40s. A couple of hospitals, for starters, and a couple of "posh" schools... And there's a little side street off it called "Dean's Place"... :-) The road leads from Victoria train station towards the Thames (Vauxhall Bridge, logically enough). :-) Perhaps he was in Victoria Station for some reason? Perhaps he was going to, or returning from, Little Hangleton for a particularly fateful trip? I don't think we've had any indication whereabouts it is, but if it's in the Home Counties, Victoria would be the London train terminus... From rvotaw at i-55.com Tue Jun 25 01:18:46 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 20:18:46 -0500 Subject: Dean Thomas/ Hagrid's fate/Defense of Hagrid Message-ID: <005301c21be6$419afea0$b6a0cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 40301 Gulpum writes: I realised that we don't know very much about Dean's background. It's not until p187 of CoS that we get "Dean Thomas, who, like Harry, had grown up with Muggles". Note the comparison. It's not "Muggle-born like Hermione". Could Dean possibly be an orphan of wizard/witch parents killed by Voldemort as well? Hagrid states several "couple names" in Book one, not Thomas, but I'm sure Voldemort killed more than three wizard couples anyway. Or if he was adopted by muggles his name may have changed anyway. Mahoney writes: >On the other hand, I think he might be developing into a role beyond >the one he's played so far (friend of the kids, adult version of >innocence), based on implications at the end of GoF. GoF contained > discussion about the need, in light of Voldemort's efforts to return >to power, to develop or cut relations with non-human magical types. >I.e., cut relations with the Dementors, because they're tailor-made >Voldemort allies, and leaving them in control of Azkaban is not the >best idea. Mention was also made of courting the giants as allies of >the good guys. Giants are typically a violent people who don't care >to mix with the outside world, but Dumbledore (er, I think it was; >suddenly not sure) seemed to think that they would be on the fence - >as likely to side with the good as with the bad guys; he tries to >convince Fudge to send a delegation to open relations with them. And I think this may be Hagrid's "last great mission." Perhaps he will be successful, then die as a hero somehow afterwards. I expect he will play a major role throughout book 5, in a greater, less bumbling capacity, but then may die in the end. I too will miss poor Hagrid if he does die. Of course, anyone who I continually catch myself calling "poor" will eventually die anyway I'm sure. That's usually how it works. Which doesn't bode well for "poor little" Neville as I keep calling him ever since it was revealed what happened to his parents! Caroline writes: >Like Jenny, I have a problem with his behavior afterwards. Hagrid >completely scrapped his curriculum in favor of teaching >flobberworms. Which, apparently, don't require a whole lot of >teaching. >But I fault Dumbledore as well, for assigning someone who is not a >fully trained wizard, much less trained as a teacher, to teach. True, Hagrid is not a great teacher due to a lack of training as a teacher. Which applies to a lot of college professors. Just as Hagrid, they "know their stuff," but don't have a clue how to teach it properly. As for Hagrid not being a fully trained wizard (which reminds me, wonder if Dumbledore knows about that pink umberella?), the only reason I can come up with is that the nature of the class doesn't rely on magic, but on ability to deal with the creatures. Richelle ------------------------------------ Richelle R. Votaw 1st grade Kentwood Elementary ------------------------------------ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From saramull at optonline.net Tue Jun 25 02:59:04 2002 From: saramull at optonline.net (sarah28962000) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 02:59:04 -0000 Subject: Britishisms Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40302 Just wanted to add my two cents about the American/British versions - I have only read the American version of all four books, but it seems to me that some words are "translated" sometimes and not others - for instance, Quidditch is played on a "field" most of the time, but I'm sure I remember stumbling over the word "pitch" at least once (by the way, I figured it out). I have also seen both Mom and Mum. In fact my six year old pointed that out to me, saying "no, you mean Mom". She was not too traumatized by the explanation that it was the English way to say Mom. The best was when my daughter got mad at me and called me a "stupid git" which is definitey not something an American kid would normally say. Too bad there's no curse words in the books, it would really increase her vocabulary. Sarah From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Tue Jun 25 03:07:05 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 03:07:05 -0000 Subject: Dean Thomas & diversity; Orphanage; superfluousness In-Reply-To: <000401c21bca$12781ac0$bbe96bd5@quack> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40303 LD said: > As far as I can make out, the Ron thats mentioned in that short > passage is Ron Weasley, who had already been sorted by the time it > was Dean's turn. Yes, I'm sure the Ron in that passage is Ron Weasley. But, he should have been sorted *after* Dean Thomas, because in the book (unlike the movie) sorting was done in alphabetical order. LD said: > It's odd how they saw fit to explicitly spell out the fact that he > was black.... I'm surprised they didn't add "Turpin, Lisa was next, > a disabled girl in a Wheelchair.... And having disabled > people is good..." Yeah, the tokenism bothered me, too. I like the "disabled Lisa" parody, as well as the one about the Patils. How about: "The Patils were Indian. Not Indian as in Native American -- although there's nothing wrong with being Native American, of course. It's just that Native Americans aren't native to Scotland. Of course, there are peoples who *are* native to Scotland, and they are welcome at Hogwarts..." (Try to imagine that read in a Monty-Pythonesque style.) Anyway, thanks to all who cleared up my confusion about Dean Thomas. Ok, now about the possibility that Dean Thomas was raised in the orphanage where Tom Riddle lived. David noted that Riddle's diary came from a store on Vauxhill Bridge road, which wouldn't be convenient to a West Ham orphanage. However, I don't think we ever found out how Riddle got the diary. Maybe he found it somewhere, or someone gave it to him (although I don't know who would give an orphan gifts.) As for Dean's apparent willingness to return home during the holidays, I can think of two possibilities, if he is in fact in the orphanage where Riddle lived. One possibility is that the orphanage has improved in 50 years. The other is that the ophanage was never really all that bad, but Riddle's personality and hatred of muggles made it seem bad to him. (Riddle clearly knew who his father was, that his father was a muggle, and that his father abandoned his mother. But, we don't know when or how he found out. It's possible he knew for a long time while he was at the orphanage, but it's also possible that he didn't.) Now, on to superfluousness. In regards to the question of whether the Portkey chapter is superfluous -- I regard about 200 pages of GoF as superfluous. (But not, however, the Portkey chapter.) I mean, I love all the JKR books of course, but the plot just doesn't *go* anywhere during the middle of GoF. I really don't care who takes whom to the Ball. (Sorry, shippers.) I wish JKR had whittled it down a couple of hundred pages. Judy, who maybe should have whittled that down a couple of hundred words From elfundeb at aol.com Tue Jun 25 04:11:36 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 00:11:36 EDT Subject: Dumbledore/Sirius/Second-Class American Edition Message-ID: <5a.d660dba.2a494778@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40304 Judy Serenity: > I also want to point out that JKR portrays Dumbledore as being > omniscient (all-knowing), or very close to it. He has the Pensieve. > He knows Trelawney's predictions, and knows which ones are accurate. > And, he has Fawkes, who appears to be able to tell who is evil is who > is not. Plus, of course, he has his own knowledge and wisdom. It is > strongly implied that Dumbledore can tell that his actions will have > the desired effect, although it's not always clear how. For example, > how did he know where to put the Mirror or Erised so that Harry could > find it? What makes him so confident in Harry's abilities to defeat > Riddle/Voldemort? (etc, etc) I've steadfastly resisted the idea that Dumbledore is omniscient. He has a lot of tricks, such as the ability to become invisible without a cloak and the apparent ability to read minds, or judge veracity (e.g., CoS ch. 12 pp. 208-09 US). But the Pensieve contains only memories, and his own, at that. It's probably not hard to tell Trelawney's *real* predictions, where she in effect is possessed by someone else, from the charlatanism she ususally affects. As for the Mirror, invisible Dumbledore might have summoned it to the classroom Harry entered. I think he expected Harry to try out the invisibility cloak, so he might have been surveilling Harry. But your point about Fawkes is interesting; I think it is Fawkes and its companion the Sorting Hat that are omniscient; Fawkes comes because Harry is loyal; Dumbledore didn't send him, as I read it, because Harry was in trouble. And he brings the Sorting Hat with Godric's sword. Dumbledore only appears omniscient because he has so many magical powers; but he also has confidence in the future and the wisdom to avoid micromanaging. Caroline --wondering why, if Dumbledore's such a powerful wizard, he doesn't have his own Marauder's Map-type security system so he knows *exactly* who's in Hogwarts at all times Oh, I think he does, but he obviously never looked at it when the Marauders went out to join Lupin at the full moon. Judy Serenity again: I don't blame Lupin for leaving the Shack as a student; I blame Sirius. Well, OK, as a major fan of Snape, I'm not favorably inclined towards Sirius, so maybe that's no completely fair. Still, knowing their personalities, isn't it likely that Sirius and James were the ones who wanted to leave the Shack, not Lupin? Lupin had been trying to hide his lycantropy from everyone, even them; why would he leave and risk exposure? I know there are a lot of Sirius fans out there, but I agree with you. I had this in mind when I said a couple of weeks ago that Lupin and Pettigrew were the followers of this gang and James and Sirius were the leaders. (Lupin can't be completely exonerated from blame, however, because he did go along with it.) I think, in fact, that I would add James and Sirius to the list of characters whose activities can be described as reckless endangerment, though I'm sure James and Sirius were quite confident that they could keep Lupin in check. Christi: > I agree that some of the changes were understandable, even necessary, > for an American audience. Remember, over here we think "football" is > something played by overpaid prima donnas with helmets and heavy > padding, and a "jumper" is a form of sleeveless dress (Imagine the > poor parents who are confronted with the question of Ron and Harry > cross-dressing!). Some things do get lost in translation. [snip] Without wanting to launch into an indictment of American provincialism, I think the changes to the American editions were a missed opportunity. American culture is so dominant that too many Americans have simply never been exposed to any other culture, and while the language differences between the American and British editions are not that great, wouldn't unedited versions of the books have been a wonderful way to expose all the American children who have been reading the books to British modes of expression? I know as a child I was always fascinated by books that provided a window into life in foreign countries, even where the language spoken is nominally the same. But instead, we get bastardized, "PC" versions. I hope the editors' decisions say more about American marketing than about Americans. > > ~Christi, who experienced great confusion when, in reading "Bridget > Jones's Diary," she saw the heroine express a desperate need for > a "fag"... This is the one possible circumstance that IMO would justify changes in the text; fag is an offensive term here in the U.S. and though the context might make clear that something else was intended, Christi's example illustrates that it's not always clear. But "philosopher"? I'm saddened at the mere thought that an American editor finds the supposed intellectualism implied by the word (if there is any) offensive. And in response to > David, who thinks that having US 'translations' gives the series a > certain mystique: American fans can graduate to the 'original text', > while Brits can see if the (JKR-approved) translations shed light on > the original. > Sad but true, I will treat the arrival of my UK editions as a "graduation." And as the Dean Thomas addition quoted by Judy Serenity should make clear, the changes to the American editions are not improvements. Debbie, noting that even with shipping costs, the UK edition cost substantially less than the US edition at the bookstore [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at aol.com Tue Jun 25 04:20:14 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 00:20:14 EDT Subject: Werewolves in the Forbidden Forest (WAS: thoughts about the forbidden forest Message-ID: <8e.29f5ea09.2a49497e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40305 In a message dated 6/21/2002 11:23:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hp_lexicon at yahoo.com writes: > The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the forest > is not just in one place, but in fact occupies a huge area which > partially surrounds the castle. [snip] > > Another thing to consider is that the forest might have a magical > aspect to its geography. [snip] > > If the forest has connections to other forests or wild places, it > might explain why, when Barty Crouch Sr. managed to get to Hogwarts, > the place he appeared was the forest. If so, one wonders which > forest elsewhere in Britain he entered to start his journey. > > The forest certainly is an amazing, mysterious place. I wonder if > even Hagrid knows all its secrets... > Indeed -- and here's another oddity I noticed when I checked out the Lexicon map. The Lexicon notes that according to canon, there are werewolves in the forest. I had thought it was just a rumor invented by the students to explain why the forest is forbidden. Draco is the first to mention it, in PS/SS ch. 15 ("We can't go in there at night--there's all sorts of things in there--werewolves, I've heard.") And in CoS ch. 15, Ron raises the same concern ("Er--aren't there--aren't there supposed to be werewolves in the forest?"), but Harry responds, "There are good things in there too. . ." with the "too" suggesting that he also believes there are werewolves in the forest. It doesn't make sense that there would actually be werewolves in the forest. If there were, all sorts of problematic questions would be raised. As in: 1. They're not beasts except at the full moon. FB&WTFT indicates that werewolves are all humans bitten by other werewolves. So even if there were werewolves in the forest, why would anyone care unless the moon was full? (The night they went into the FF in PS/SS the moon is described as "bright" but not full.) 2. If there are werewolves in the forest, what do they do when it's not a full moon? Do they live elsewhere and come to the forest only at the full moon, via the magical entrances Steve suggests? Surely they don't live there all the time, or Lupin would have been introduced to them. 3. If Steve's magical entrances theory is right, why aren't these other werewolves locked up as Lupin is during the full moon? Why would they be allowed to roam in a forest where they could transport themselves to Hogwarts? Isn't the purpose of the Werewolf Registry and Werewolf Capture Unit mentioned in Fantastic Beasts to keep tabs on them? 4. If the werewolves do get into the forest, why have they never left the forest and attacked a student who sneaks out at night? 5. If they don't leave the forest during the full moon, why did they have to plant the Whomping Willow and build the Shrieking Shack for Lupin? Why couldn't they just send him to the forest? And in fact, in PoA, he did spend his night as a werewolf safely in the forest. (One possibility here is that if Lupin took all but his last dose of Wolfsbane, he retained more of his mind and wasn't as vicious as he might have been otherwise. That's how he knew he didn't eat anyone.) 6. If 1-5 are valid objections, I can understand why Filch encouraged the rumor ("Should've thought of them werewolves before you got in trouble, shouldn't you?") but Hagrid? Yet Hagrid, who ought to know, doesn't ever set Harry straight. Harry asks, "Could a werewolf be killing the unicorns?" And Hagrid's response is that werewolves are "not fast enough." The only possible answer I can come up with is that it *is* just a silly rumor and that Hagrid's not supposed to disabuse anyone of the notion, because it keeps the students out of the forest. Except for one problem. Werewolves are on the third-year DADA curriculum, so by that time everyone should have figured out that those supposed werewolves in the forest aren't such a deterrent after all. So I can't see any reason for Hagrid, who ought to know better than anyone what's in the forest, to go along with such a silly rumor. Did it take JKR three books to figure out that there can't be any werewolves in the forest? Debbie, who knew all about werewolves when she was 11 from watching "Dark Shadows" on TV [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From draco382 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 25 02:14:47 2002 From: draco382 at yahoo.com (draco382) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 02:14:47 -0000 Subject: The Voldemort-Potter Connection In-Reply-To: <024401c21be1$02b800c0$e1a2cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40306 Richelle wrote: > Ah, good. Someone agrees with me. :) To give you my theory point blank, I > think that Tom Riddle had a child with a muggle (whether adulterous or not, > I don't know, given I don't know the ages of Lily and Petunia) and that > child is Lily. The ages work out perfectly. Anybody have a guess at how > old Lily is? Petunia? Would Lily have been in Hogwarts at the time that > Voldemort "went bad?" (about 20 years before book one, according to Hagrid) > Could her name have even been changed to protect her? Or could she have > never even known who her real father was? Perhaps she was raised as > Petunia's full sister and no one (other than her mother and maybe a few > select others) knew otherwise. wow...so I guess this introduces a new Fatherly!Voldemort to the discussion! This is a very interesting new theory. But I have one question...does this mean that Lily is an orphan that was taken in by Petunia and her folks? But that doesn't explain why Petunia doesn't have any pictures of Harry's Family anywhere. I mean, they would after all, be just a muggle family, right? Unless, Voldemort killed them all systematically, after Lily joined the crew. Maybe I'm just confused, but I'd love to hear more about this. ~draco382 (who's liking Fatherly!Voldemort more than Sexual!Voldemort any day.) From moxiebuzz at hotmail.com Tue Jun 25 05:29:24 2002 From: moxiebuzz at hotmail.com (cherrybrainfreezie) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 05:29:24 -0000 Subject: race [book differences?] (WAS Dean Thomas and Re: book differences - Lilies) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40307 I don't think it's a case of political correctness being shoved down our throats -- in fact, I think that JKR's merely being descriptive. If we know exactly what even the most minor character looks like, we get a more vivid sense of the world. And, in comparison to most of the students in a British boarding school, the most striking descriptive point about a black student would no doubt happen to be that they happen to be black. (note the use of the word "happen"; as a suburban white guy, it is required by law that I don't say "he's black" but instead "he happens to be black." :) ) Parvati, Cho Chang, etc... in their cases, well, frankly, their names give away a lot of what they can be expected to look like. And that's not racism, that's just a learned response. An Asian name would likely lead you to believe that the owner of the name was of Asian descent. Logic, right? Whereas the name "Dean Thomas", for example, isn't particularly indicative of anything in the same way that, perhaps, the name "Lyombe Eko" would have been (Lyombe Eko was my Mass. Comm professor. He had undoubtably the coolest accent I've ever heard). Now, if Cho had been named "Rosanne Holaday" or something, and the image in JKR's mind was that of a young Asian girl, then she would no doubt tell us just that. ~andy, who really hates those people who just show up in Web forums and jump right into ongoing conversations like they know what they're talking about and pick fights with the regulars and -- what was that? but i haven't got a mirror! From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Jun 25 06:11:25 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 02:11:25 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Latin and the Founders WAS Female Founders Message-ID: <195.8be07d6.2a49638d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40308 Pip quotes me: > > At this time, yes, the educated would know Latin (at least, after > > the arrival of Christianity). As far as women went, I would suggest > > that would include only the daughters of nobility, educated > > privately (and not necessarily then) and nuns, also often of noble > > birth. (As a matter of interest, the school my daughter is about to > > move on to was founded in 604, but it didn't admit girls until > > 1993!) I don't know anything about witchcraft during the period, > > but I think it's unlikely that practitioners of native magic would > > be Latin speakers. > > Pip: > This is extremely arguable. Most Latin-speaking nuns were of noble > Eloise: Isn't that exactly what I said? Pip: And literacy, or Latin speaking, were both > primarily seen as job-related > skills in the 10th Century (and were seen so right up to the High Middle > Ages). Most people didn't learn to read simply because they had no *need* > to read in their work (and the cost of books and paper made reading a > Eloise: I don't see what the argument is here. Exactly. Most people did not learn Latin, since it was the language of scholarship and of literacy. Scholarship and literacy were largely in the hands of the Church, so I am led back to the original question of how a witch came to know Latin. I am *assuming* that at this point, as at most others, witchcraft and the Church weren't particularly compatible. I know alchemy (which has been practiced by the religious) has very ancient origins, but again, in Britain that tends to be associated with the Middle Ages and later, rather than the pre-conquest period. > Pip: > The fact that the Hogwarts founders felt it necessary to build a > school, rather than continue what must have previously been > an 'apprenticeship' system, suggests to me that it was becoming > obvious that literacy and Latin were required skills for high level > magic. Otherwise why bother with a school? All non-literacy based > crafts were taught solely by apprenticeship well into the High Middle > Eloise: I think you're pushing the point here. You're probably correct, but it's inference, particularly since there is no evidence that Latin and literacy are skills taught today in the furtherance of high level magic. And why bother with a *castle*, which is a defensive building? Could it have been for protection, more than anything else? > Eloise: > > But I think it's a mistake to try to put Hogwarts' founding into a > > Muggle historical context. We're told the founders built the > > castle. > > Well, castles didn't exist in Britain during the Saxon period (with > > or without plumbing!)There were no large stone buildings, excepting > > some churches. OK, there was the original Westminster Abbey, > > sometime in the 900s (built by a Frenchman) but nothing else > > substantial and certainly not in Scotland. > > > Pip: > No, but 'built' when applied to buildings over a thousand years old > tends to mean more 'built the original building on this site. We > still have some of the surviving stones in that wall over there.' > [grin]- after all, Hogwarts probably got bigger, some of the original > parts probably gave up the fight against woodworm and the British > weather after a century or three, and the only reason the Chamber of > Secrets survived was likely to be the sheer number of spells > Eloise: Naturally. That was my instinctive interpretation. But the text says that they built a castle (complete with subterranean hidden chamber) and no-one did that in Saxon-period Britain, as far as I am aware. Except magicians, it seems! :-) I'm quite happy to accept that the Fouders built a castle. It's canon. For the Muggle world, though, it's an anachronism. > Pip: > Certainly most of our Muggle 'Ancient Castles' only have some of the > original bits left, sometimes started as wooden Motte-and-Bailey > style constructions, and now often have modern plumbing as well. But > you'd still describe them as having been 'built' by, say, William the > Eloise: Who is later than the period under consideration, as are motte-and bailey castles, wooden or not. > > > The names of the founders don't ring true for the period, either. > > Gryffindor seems to be of French origin, more the sort of thing > > you'd get after the Norman Conquest. > Pip: > IRC, Hogwarts is the oldest school of magic in Europe, and may have > originally had students from all of Western Europe - the founders are > described as the greatest witches and wizards of the age, not the > greatest British/Irish witches and wizards. Salazar is of Portugese > origin, I think? And Britain as a whole was pretty much off the > beaten track in the 10th Century - a good place to hide a school. > > Another reason for the original 'teaching' language to have been > Latin would be that the original students could not have spoken > English (it didn't exist). I'm not an expert on which languages were > around then, but there was not just one native language in 10th > Century Britain [Even today English is *not* the native language of > the whole of the British Isles - though Welsh and Gaelic speakers do > generally have English as their second language]. Languages included > Anglo-Saxon, Old Danish (Northern England), Gaelic and the Welsh > variant of Gaelic (now Welsh). Whether Hogwarts originally covered > all Western Europe or not, they would still have had to pick one > Eloise: Agreed. But it's all inference. I was replying to a thread that made the assumption that the female founders *did* speak Latin. I have said that Latin was the language of the educated at the time. The point I was making here was simply that the founders don't sound like a bunch of Anglo-Saxons, or Jutes, or Picts, or 'Celts', whatever. You have a valid point that it may have been an international school. But my point about 'Gryffindor' is that it sounds like a British corruption of a French name, the sort of name that would occur at a later point in history. Goodness only knows what 'Hufflepuff' sounds like. And 'Slytherin' sounds to my ears like nothing but a modern play on words, though I am more than happy to be corrected. > Eloise: > > > > So it looks to me like we either just have accept what JKR says and > > not question it too closely, or assume that already there was a > > rift between magical and non-magical folks, which means that we > > don't have to worry too much about how Helga and Rowena learned > > their Latin. > > > > > > On a related note, it has been suggested that Latin is used for > > spells as it is a sort of lingua franka, allowing communication > > between wizards of different nationalities. > > > > My Latin is somewhat rusty, but I would say that many of JKR's > > spells aren't so much Latin, as Latin-derived. She uses some very > > odd forms with no consistency. To me, she's just playing with words > > in the same way she often does with names. > Pip: > er Latin doesn't follow any classical rules, no, but that is > consistent with 'Wizard Latin' taking a different, non-muggle route - > probably moving to being solely used for spell identification at some > unknown point. Medieval Latin has slightly different rules to > Classical Latin, and the Latin still used by biologists to identify > Eloise: More or less what I said. JKR's wizard Latin is derived from Latin, rather than being a recognised form of Latin. I just happen to believe that it's *her* creation and that she hasn't really tried to reconstruct the liguistic route that the words might have taken. Just as some of her names/terms have obvious significance and some seem to have been chosen out of humour. > > > We also have no evidence whatsoever that the students learn Latin, > > or any other language, come to that. > Pip: > gain, most biologists simply learn the Latin terminology by rote > these days, and wouldn't bother with the Latin language as such > (though I believe a Latin 'O' level (O.W.L. equivalent) used to be > compulsory for some biological degree courses as few as 30 years > ago). So this may be what happens in modern Hogwarts - students just > Eloise: Precisely. I was countering the argument that Latin *is* a wizarding lingua franka. > > > > > > No, I think I'll just choose to live happily with the fact that the > > whole lot just doesn't work when you look too closely. > > > > Eloise > Pip: > h, I always think it's much more fun to try and make it work. [Very > Eloise: That way madness lies. ;-) I'm afraid I get to the point where I lose patience with trying to make every detail of someone else's imaginary world work. Like I wouldn't waste my energies determined to make all the pieces of a jig-saw puzzle fit if I was pretty sure that some of the originals were missing and and had been substituted by others from another puzzle. The point I was making was simply that I don't think it is helpful to try to confine the founding of Hogwarts in an historical straitjacket. If we do, then awkward questions arise. If we assume that the wizarding and Muggle worlds had already started to diverge, then the building of a castle becomes more acceptable. But...If JKR says that the founders built a castle, fine, within the confines of this piece of literature, they did. However a lot of people reading it will not realise that this is an anachronism. I'm tempted to ask whether the author did. If she did, does it have significance? *I* suspect not. I suspect she just liked the idea of the school being set in an ancient castle, just as she simply liked the idea of the students all going to school by train (even though many of them logically will have travelled further just to get to Kings Cross than they would have done if they'd gone directly to Hogwarts). This anachronism suggests, to me at least, that we don't have to worry too much about making the other details of the founding fit too much, either. That was the one paragraph of mine that you quoted above, but didn't comment on. ;-) Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Tue Jun 25 09:33:09 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:33:09 -0000 Subject: Latin and the Founders In-Reply-To: <195.8be07d6.2a49638d@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40309 [Lots of stuff about Latin snipped] I think the Latin discussion is to veering off topic. To bring things back to the Potterverse, let me say that I susbscribe to the theory that the particular spell words aren't essential; they just help one focus one's power. (I think this despite Hermione's claim that "Wingardium Leviosa" needs to be pronounced properly. After all, a) She was a new student, and might have been wrong; and b) the sound of words in a particular spell might help a new user to get in the right frame of mind, but that doesn't mean that *only* those specific words would work.) So, I don't think there's any particular requirement that magic users know Latin. We saw non-European magic users at the Quidditch World Cup, and I doubt they would use Latin-sounding spells. Eloise said: > The point I was making here was simply that the founders don't sound like a bunch of Anglo-Saxons, or Jutes, or Picts, or 'Celts', whatever. ... But my point about 'Gryffindor' is that it sounds like a British corruption of a French name, the sort of name that would occur at a later point in history....< The anachronism of the names, and of a thousand year old castle, don't really bother me. After all, there is time travel in the Potterverse; the founders of Hogwarts could easily be influence by events that took place centuries after Hogwarts was founded. -- Judy From JPA30 at cam.ac.uk Tue Jun 25 11:42:55 2002 From: JPA30 at cam.ac.uk (archeaologee) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:42:55 -0000 Subject: Quirrell's "death" in PS/SS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40310 "Hexicon" wrote: > Hi: Longtime lurker, first-time poster. I tried to lurk at first, but the temptation to post on my first visit was too strong ;-) good to have you with us in written form! > Was re-reading PS/SS recently and something struck me: do we really > know that Quirrell is dead? In PS/SS 17, Dumbledore > says "[Voldemort] left Quirrell to die." This isn't the same thing > as saying, "Voldemort killed Quirrell," or "Quirrell died when > Voldemort fled his body," especially given the precision of JKR's > prose. You can "leave someone to die" without its resulting in the > person's death. I brought this up a little while ago (although I'm not sure if it was here or on FAP - there is a deadly!harry thread here and it may be on that) and was told that whilst we have no idea that he is dead in PS\SS we are informed he is indeed dead GoF. I'm not sure we are told when or how he died though, Harry just seems to cause him burning pain (the quote is something like "he could not bear to touch you" from Dumbledore) and I'm not sure that would kill him. One of my pet gripes about the-film-which-must-not-be-named was that it seemed to show Harry killing someone without any qualms and with no real consequences. I always preferred the idea that Quirrel was hauled off to wizard prison, or stripped of his powers or something (I'm not sure we know about Azkaban at this stage). Please post again, James (who is being forced to post less by his blessed re-union with his canon, but seperation from his magical 10mbps internet link) From JPA30 at cam.ac.uk Tue Jun 25 12:05:01 2002 From: JPA30 at cam.ac.uk (archeaologee) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:05:01 -0000 Subject: Separated by a common language (WAS: Jim Dale, Stupid Americans etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40311 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Christi >I agree that some of the changes were understandable, even necessary, > for an American audience. Remember, over here we think "football" is > something played by overpaid prima donnas with helmets and heavy > padding, and a "jumper" is a form of sleeveless dress (Imagine the > poor parents who are confronted with the question of Ron and Harry > cross-dressing!). Just to add furthur to the obfustication... As a native *English* speaker I am currently on a course which is composed of 75% North Americans. Jumper always makes them laugh as to them it is someone attempting suicide. Also our version of 'football' is filled with prima-donna's as well, and the USA has just performed remarkably well in the 'real' world cup [the quidditch one is far cooler though] I believe Landon Donavan is on the cover of Sports Illustrated this month in the States. However, when the film "chicken run" (which I loved btw) was released in the States it was acompanied by a glossary. They couldn't change the script so they produced a brief list with some of the more obscure English\Yorkshire dialect explained which they handed out at the movie theatre. I think this would have explained away any 'problems' without subtracting from the flavour of the books. Part of the reason you read about another culture [ok, as an English public schoolboy there isn't a LOT of difference between my culture and the non-magic aspects of JKR's world, we even competed in house 7 a side tournaments] is to absorb the language, and the way that this is used is deeply indicative of the differences in the way people think. The North American versions of the books don't translate words like "muggle" do they. > ~Christi, who experienced great confusion when, in reading "Bridget > Jones's Diary," she saw the heroine express a desperate need for > a "fag"... James (who is probably replying to the wrong part of the thread - but was more confused by Bridget's weighing herself in the middle of the night, then again in the morning than by her use of language) From awillia2 at gladstone.uoregon.edu Tue Jun 25 11:26:00 2002 From: awillia2 at gladstone.uoregon.edu (Aesha Williams) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 04:26:00 -0700 Subject: The Lily and... minor flaws, IMO (was: Flower names) References: <1024674497.2385.42978.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <002101c21c3b$15eb8540$a3d1df80@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 40312 Hi all! I'm Aesha. I've been lurking around for 3-4 weeks just checking things out, and this is a great list! Love the lexicon and the essays. I must say, I think my favorite theory so far is the "seventh son" theory. Then again, there have been so many to look at I've probably forgotten half of them. :) I have a little info on the Lily of the Valley: let's see... "From the retired place in which it grows, one learns humility." I'm not sure what that would have to do with anything... just a little something I knew... I like the Lily-Emerald connection. I can't wait to get more involved- I'll have to remember to make notes so I don't forget what I was going to say (which keeps happening. :) Oh, wait. I do remember something else that is really the only thing I noticed (until I joined the list, of course) that bothered me. I apologize if it's been brought up. Firstly, and not as annoying, is the fact that Wormtail escaped from the gang at the end of the term in PoA. Wormtail, who has been a rat for 12 years, escapes and in less than 3 months makes his way to Albania, runs into our friend Bertha, finds his master (who he's had no contact with), they kill Bertha, hatch this elaborate scheme, find BartyJr., and get to the Riddle house. Wow. I'm not a big fan of CoS anyway, but it seems maybe she should have had a story like that for a year before the Tournament- that way there's a year to find Voldemort, Bertha and BartyJ, figure out this plan in such precision that it flows perfectly for almost 9 months, even under the eye of (presumably) one of Mad-Eye's closest friends... Secondly, the part that I really get a little confused with. In the Death Eater Circle, he rants about how none of his death eaters went to find him, about how the LeStranges were loyal to him always, etc... but then also speaks of his loyal servant at Hogwarts. Here's my problem. In my opinion, the moment that BartyJr. 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? Due to the fact that he went to Azkaban anyway? Or does Voldemort "pardon" him because he was willing to do whatever Voldy asked when he came knocking? But wait. On page 10, US hardback, it says: "Wormtail, I need somebody with brains, somebody whose loyalty has never wavered, and you, unfortunately, fulfill neither requirement." Curious. I suppose one could argue that Voldemort knew that BartyJr. had been to Azkaban and not how he had acted at the trial. Aesha From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Tue Jun 25 12:55:02 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:55:02 -0000 Subject: minor flaws? In-Reply-To: <002101c21c3b$15eb8540$a3d1df80@hppav> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40313 Aesha Williams wrote that things seem to work out to easily for the evil side: >... Wormtail, who has been a rat for 12 years, escapes and in less > than 3 months makes his way to Albania, runs into > our friend Bertha, finds his master (who he's had no contact with), > they kill Bertha, hatch this elaborate scheme, find BartyJr., and > get to the Riddle house. Wow.... Hey, it's magic! More seriously, many fantasy stories have an unspoken undercurrent of fate -- Voldemort is successful at regaining his body because he is *destined* to regain it, regardless of how incompetent Wormtail is or how hard it is to find a disembodied spirit in the vast forests of Albania. (Well, I don't really know if Albania's forest are vast, but whatever.) We know that Wormtail is predestined to restore him to power, Trelawney says so in a trance. I actually prefer this "inevitable destiny" approach to the approach found in many science fiction and action movies, where the hero manages to suceed against all reasonable odds, with no supernatural explanation implied. Aesha also said: > [Voldemort] speaks of his loyal servant at Hogwarts.... > In my opinion, the moment that BartyJr. 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?... Perhaps Barty Jr wanted to stay out of Azkaban primarily so that he could find Voldemort and return him to power. It is in fact canon that Barty Jr. was much more interested in helping Voldemort than in staying safe and sound outside of Azkaban; this is why his father put him under Imperio. I don't think Voldemort would mind being denounced if it increased his chances of regaining his body. And in fact, one could argue that Barty Jr's denouncing him did just that. If Barty Jr. had proclaimed his undying devotion to Voldemort, as the woman in the Pensieve scene did, his parents might not have helped him escape, and he would not have been available to help Voldemort regain power. There are a number of things in the Harry Potter books that I see as plot holes, but not these particular things. -- Judy From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Jun 25 13:07:50 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:07:50 EDT Subject: Anachronisms/Quirrell/Lavender/ BRAVE Riddle/Voldemort-Potter connection/ bathro Message-ID: <51.1ff83f7c.2a49c526@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40314 Judy: > I think the Latin discussion is to veering off topic. Agreed. Apologies. Judy: >The anachronism of the names, and of a thousand year old castle, don't >really bother me. After all, there is time travel in the Potterverse; >the founders of Hogwarts could easily be influence by events that took >place centuries after Hogwarts was founded. Exactly. This all started by my trying to point out that there are reasons for not trying to tie up what was happening in the wizard world with *Muggle* history. .................. James, on Quirrell's death: >I'm not sure we are told when or how he died though, Harry just seems >to cause him burning pain (the quote is something like "he could not >bear to touch you" from Dumbledore) and I'm not sure that would kill >him. Voldemort says that Quirrell died when he (V) left his body. (GOF, 567, UK HB) .............................. All sorts of bits and pieces I've picked up over the last couple of days! Andy: > (I'm new here. Forgive me if this has all been said before, or if I'm > crossing some previously drawn and whispered about line of decor. I > always seem to step on virtual toes whenever I join one of these > things.. ;) ) > > It makes sense. Lavender and Pavarti are both unrepentant "girly > girls" (to borrow an expression from my friend Carolyn) who think that > "ohmigod, Mad Eye Moody's eye should, like, not be ALLOWED." Heck, > there had to be shallow preppies at Hogwarts, I suppose... ;) > Welcome, Andy. Well, I don't *think* I'm a shallow preppy, insofar as I understand the terminology (she says, glancing nervously around) but to be quite frank *I'd* be rather disconcerted if I suddenly realised that the spooky old man who taught me DADA could, at that very moment see *my* underwear. And, presumably, what was inside it! No. I don't like JKR's portrayal of females in general, but in this case, I think the girl's got a point! (But you haven't stepped on my toes.) ................... Judy Serenity: > A comment on the fact that brave is capitalized when Riddle describes > himself as "parentless, but so BRAVE." Perhaps JKR is saying that > Riddle, like Harry, had a choice of Gryffindor or Slytherin houses. > A few pages later, Dumbledore talks about that many dangerous > transformations Voldemort underwent. Voldemort may be ever-so-evil, > but he's not a wimp. So, the Sorting Hat might have had trouble > That's interesting because, you know, I always read that the opposite way: that the 'bravery' in question was just part of the act that Riddle was putting on. I'm not denying that he may indeed be brave, but I think that particular paragraph is to do with the image that he had been projecting. I interpret it as his mocking the gullibility of Dippet and the other teachers there. He was *so* brave tracking down the Monster of Slytherin, wasn't he (when all the time he was in control of it). BTW, is it really capitalised? in my UK version, it's italicised. A minor difference, but I wonder why anyone should make that change. ..................................... Richelle: > Ah, good. Someone agrees with me. :) To give you my theory point blank, I > think that Tom Riddle had a child with a muggle (whether adulterous or not, > I don't know, given I don't know the ages of Lily and Petunia) and that > child is Lily. The ages work out perfectly. Anybody have a guess at how > old Lily is? Petunia? Would Lily have been in Hogwarts at the time that > Voldemort "went bad?" (about 20 years before book one, according to Hagrid) > Could her name have even been changed to protect her? Or could she have > never even known who her real father was? Perhaps she was raised as > Petunia's full sister and no one (other than her mother and maybe a few > select others) knew otherwise. > > My only J.K. Rowling support for all of this (other than deductive reasoning > from the four books and my imagination) is this: > > In a Scholastic author interview last year, J.K. Rowling was asked flat out > "Is Harry related to Voldemort?" A simple no would have sufficed, right? > Her answer? (probably not an exact quote, but close) "Well, that would make > it a bit Star Wars wouldn't it?" There you go. She clearly (to me anyway) > evaded the question, changed the subject, and hoped everyone would simply > say "oh, that can't be it." But to me it leaves the door open! > > Okay, I've gone on long enough. With apologies to those who have heard this before...... Canon, well, Dumbledore, who may or may not be omniscient or nearly omniscient and may or may not be conveying a 'fact' from the author at this point, tells us that Voldemort is Slytherin's only remaining descendent. If this is correct, Harry *cannot* be Riddle's grandson. If it's incorrect, then that's a piece of misdirection that's going to need some major explaining, in my book. Perhaps Dumbledore has a touch of Voldementia: 'Oh, no Harry, you *are* a descendent of Slytherin. I forgot.' Harry sees his family in the mirror of Erised. He did not see Lord Voldemort there. (OK, I conceed that perhaps he could have seen Tom, whom he wouldn't recognise at that point.) I agree that JKR's comment could be seen as evasive, but do you think she *wants* so be compared to that aspect of Star Wars? That Luke/Darth Vader thing is something which so many people dislike that I assume her comment can be taken at face value. ....................................... Rosie: Oh - was it the same bathroom as Myrtle's? Very interesting point if so. I actually > don't remember, although it seems strange that Myrtle wasn't annoying HRH as > they fought the troll if so. Maybe she had been flushed down to the lake? > You know, I've always found this bathroom thing a bit intriguing. The information that Ron and Harry have is just that Hermione is crying 'in the girls' toilets'. Now in a castle that size, is there only one set of girls' loos? No, we know not, because there are Myrtle's, which are permanently out of order. And surely Gryffindor tower must have some. Are the students supposed to go wandering the castle at night? We know they're not; it would give Harry too good an excuse for nocturnal ramblings: 'What are you doing here, Potter?' 'I got lost trying to find the toilets in the dark, Professor.' The book implies the one Hermione's in is on the ground floor. So....how did Harry and Ron know where precisely to look for her? I'm sure if I'd been Hermione I would have locked myself in the ones attached to my dormitory where I was less likely to be disturbed whilst everyone else was in class. Eloise Looking forward a time in the distant future when locking oneself in the bathroom really does guarantee not being disturbed. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Tue Jun 25 14:02:29 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:02:29 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: minor flaws? Message-ID: <12e.1357b14d.2a49d1f5@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40315 In a message dated 6/25/2002 9:06:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, judyshapiro at earthlink.net writes: << I actually prefer this "inevitable destiny" approach to the approach found in many science fiction and action movies, where the hero manages to suceed against all reasonable odds, with no supernatural explanation implied. >> This may be a bit off topic, but I've always hoped that the people in the Potterverse weren't ruled by "inevitable destiny". That means that Harry, who tries so hard and goes through so many difficulties and life altering changes, and hard decisions, really doesn't have to do anything at all - rather, everything will happen because it's supposed to. He shouldn't have to worry about letting Wormtail go, or if Sirius is guilty or not, because everything will work out anyway. Sorry for the ranting :) *Chelsea* From lav at tut.by Tue Jun 25 14:05:08 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:05:08 +0300 Subject: Sirius Animagus; Broomstick Message-ID: <7812474129.20020625170508@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 40316 Greetings! Two minor problems that harass my mind: 1. I have re-read PoA, and now a question appeared: in the Shrieking Shack, Lupin tells the story of the Marauders to HRH and invisible Snape. He also mentions that three of Marauders were animagi. Snape hears the whole story. Yet in the GoF, ministry seems to be unaware of the fact that Sirius is an animagus. Surely Snape would squeal on Sirius if he was given a chance? If he didn't, then why? 2. A small investigation in the Quidditch information brought the following results: a. Harry's broom, Firebolt, accelerates to 150 mph in 10 seconds (PA). b. Quidditch field/pitch is 500 feet long. Adding this and a few simple formulaes from physics, we get that, starting from one end of quidditch field and from zero speed, Firebolt will cross the whole field in around 2 seconds. It's speed at the end of the field will equal 30 miles per hour. Even if we take all maneuvers, risings and divings into account, we can probably double maximum speed achieved, but no more. That is, maximum speed that a player on Firebolt can have in quidditch game, is about 60 mph. But Firebolt has maximum speed of 150 mph. What the hell is the excess speed for? Wouldn't it be better to put more powerful accelerating/deccelerating spells on it instead? Why on Earth to give the broomstick an aerodynamic form, if it will be the player who will provide the most of air resistance? Reply may seem strange, but it's logical: Firebolt is NOT a sporting broom, it is a racing broom. But then... why did Irish team choose that stupid broom to use on Quidditch World Cup? Questions, questions... Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, who still didn't have a chance to see PS movie in normal translation... :-/ Tuesday, June 25, 2002, 16:54 local time (GMT+2:00) From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Tue Jun 25 14:17:40 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 14:17:40 -0000 Subject: BRAVE Riddle / Voldemort-Potter connection In-Reply-To: <51.1ff83f7c.2a49c526@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40317 I had: > > A comment on the fact that brave is capitalized when Riddle > > describes himself as "parentless, but so BRAVE." ... Voldemort > > may be ever-so-evil, but he's not a wimp... And Eloise (who really didn't need to apologize for the Latin discusison) replied: > ... I always read that the opposite way: that the 'bravery' in > question was just part of the act that Riddle was putting on.... > I interpret it as his mocking the gullibility of Dippet... > BTW, is it really capitalised? in my UK version, it's italicised... Ah, that's a good interpretation; in fact, I think I like it better than my own. (And you are right, it's italicized, not capitalized.) Now, about whether Harry is related to Riddle, Eloise noted: > Dumbledore... tells us that Voldemort is Slytherin's only remaining > descendent. If this is correct, Harry *cannot* be Riddle's grandson. I used this argument, too, a while back. However, someone then noted that the passage reads last surviving descendent in some versions of the book, and last surviving *ancestor* in other versions. JKR was asked about this is an interview, and said something like "You've noticed the deliberate error." At first, I thought she ment the publisher had made an error, but in retrospect, I wonder if perhaps *Dumbledore* was supposed to have made a deliberate error, and said "ancestor" hoping Harry would think he meant "descendent." So, perhaps Voldemort is Slytherin's ancestor, in which case Harry could be Slytherin's and/or Voldemort's descendent. Of course, for this to be true, someone would have had to travel back in time (Voldemort, Slytherin, or some other ancestor of Syltherin's.) The argument that Voldemort truly is descended from Slytherin, not the other way around, comes from the "Heir of Slytherin" chapter of CoS. Here, Tom Riddle says "I, in whose veins runs the blood of Salazar Slytherin himself, though my mother's side?" If Riddle was Slytherin's ancestor, it might still make sense to say that Slytherin's blood ran through his veins, but it wouldn't make sense to describe it as on "my mother's side". (And, it would be weird that he is called the "heir" of Slytherin.) Of course, at age 15 maybe Riddle didn't know how he was related to Slytherin, and simply guessed that he was descended from Slytherin via his mother. And "heir" could just refer to inheriting the Chamber of Secrets, rather than to being a descendent. Judy Serenity From lee.farley at ntlworld.com Tue Jun 25 14:37:21 2002 From: lee.farley at ntlworld.com (LD) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:37:21 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius Animagus; Broomstick In-Reply-To: <7812474129.20020625170508@tut.by> Message-ID: <000001c21c55$d55831c0$0ae46bd5@quack> No: HPFGUIDX 40318 Alexander wrote: >1. > > I have re-read PoA, and now a question appeared: in the >Shrieking Shack, Lupin tells the story of the Marauders to HRH >and invisible Snape. He also mentions that three of Marauders >were animagi. Snape hears the whole story. > > Yet in the GoF, ministry seems to be unaware of the fact >that Sirius is an animagus. Surely Snape would squeal on >Sirius if he was given a chance? If he didn't, then why? Let's be honest, what's the point of telling the Ministry that Sirius is an Animagus? They already want to suck out his soul with a Dementor, what more could they possibly do? And would they believe Snape even if he *was* petty enough to tell them? No, I think Dumbledore took Snape aside and ordered him not to tell Not only would it have gotten Sirius into more trouble, but Remus also. Dumbledore must have had plans for Lupin and Black later on :) >2. > > A small investigation in the Quidditch information brought >the following results: > > a. Harry's broom, Firebolt, accelerates to 150 mph in 10 > seconds (PA). > b. Quidditch field/pitch is 500 feet long. > > >maximum speed that a player on Firebolt can >have in quidditch game, is about 60 mph. > > But Firebolt has maximum speed of 150 mph. What the hell >is the excess speed for? > > >Firebolt is NOT >a sporting broom, it is a racing broom. > > But then... why did Irish team choose that stupid broom to >use on Quidditch World Cup? Great point, and one that's fairly easily resolved (for me at least). Let's look at Ferrari for a second. Ferrari make very fast sports cars, most of which could easily reach 200mph if given the chance. The fact that the car can do 200mph is completely irrelevant though, because the most you can do (on British roads at least) is 70mph. So just as with the Firebolt, why is the excess speed there? Bragging rights. Yes, it really is that simple. It's a show of power to your peers, similar to the way that processor clock speeds on modern PCs are spiralling out of control. You might only need an ancient 486 to type up the occasional letter on, but you still want that 2GHz P4 with that gorgeous flat panel monitor. It's a head-turner. And just a thought on one other thing you said: > >Harry's broom, Firebolt, accelerates to 150 mph in 10 seconds >Wouldn't it be better to put more powerful accelerating/deccelerating spells on it instead? > Sure, the ability to stop and start almost instantaneously would be good, but would the rider even be able to stay on the broom? Accelerating to 200mpg in 2 seconds might *sound* impressive, but you can bet that the rider would be tumbling towards the ground faster than you can say "excessive power" From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Jun 25 15:01:04 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:01:04 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: BRAVE Riddle / Voldemort-Potter connection Message-ID: <49.1f6cefdd.2a49dfb0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40319 Judy: > Now, about whether Harry is related to Riddle, Eloise noted: > > Dumbledore... tells us that Voldemort is Slytherin's only remaining > > descendent. If this is correct, Harry *cannot* be Riddle's grandson. > > I used this argument, too, a while back. However, someone then noted > that the passage reads last surviving descendent in some versions of > the book, and last surviving *ancestor* in other versions. JKR was > asked about this is an interview, and said something like "You've > noticed the deliberate error." > I decided not to get into the ancestor business. But I should have known better: there's always a LOON around somewhere.....;-) This may be terribly crass. If it is, please forgive me, only this has been brought up enough times for me to begin to wonder whether this just *could* be one of those English usage things. I'm sure I'm stating the obvious, but, in British usage at least, 'Ah, you've noticed the deliberate error,' is such a common way of admitting a mistake (perhaps JKR's, rather than the editor's, hence the tongue-in-cheek response?) that I've always taken it to be just that. As Judy so graphically demonstrates, you have to jump through a lot of rings to get 'ancestor' to make any sense. Eloise, glad that Judy liked her *brave* Riddle interpretation. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From divaclv at aol.com Tue Jun 25 15:43:54 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:43:54 -0000 Subject: Separated by a common language (WAS: Jim Dale, Stupid Americans etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40320 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "archeaologee" wrote: > As a native *English* speaker I am currently on a course which is > composed of 75% North Americans. Jumper always makes them laugh as > to them it is someone attempting suicide. Also our version > of 'football' is filled with prima-donna's as well, and the USA has > just performed remarkably well in the 'real' world cup [the quidditch > one is far cooler though] I believe Landon Donavan is on the cover of > Sports Illustrated this month in the States. Yes, but your football prima donnas don't wear helmets and heavy padding--THAT was the distiction ;-) (snip) > The North American versions of the books don't translate words > like "muggle" do they. > > No, but that's an entirely different issue. "Muggle" is Wizard slang, not British slang, and so there's no real point in switching it. Maybe American wizards have another word for non-magic types, but since we haven't met any in the books yet (the Salem witches in GoF don't count, since we only see them in passing) that's kind of a moot point. ~Christi From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 25 15:44:49 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:44:49 -0000 Subject: Voldemort descendents WAS BRAVE Riddle / Voldemort-Potter connection In-Reply-To: <49.1f6cefdd.2a49dfb0@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40321 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > Judy: > > Now, about whether Harry is related to Riddle, Eloise noted: > > > Dumbledore... tells us that Voldemort is Slytherin's only > > > remaining descendent. If this is correct, Harry *cannot* be > > > Riddle's grandson. > >Judy again: > > I used this argument, too, a while back. However, someone then > > noted that the passage reads last surviving descendent in some > > versions of the book, and last surviving *ancestor* in other > > versions. JKR was asked about this is an interview, and said > > something like "You've noticed the deliberate error." > > > Eloise replied: > I decided not to get into the ancestor business. But I should have > known better: there's always a LOON around somewhere.....;-) > > This may be terribly crass. If it is, please forgive me, only this > has been brought up enough times for me to begin to wonder whether > this just *could* be one of those English usage things. I'm sure > I'm stating the obvious, but,in British usage at least, 'Ah, you've > noticed the deliberate error,' is such a common way of admitting a > mistake (perhaps JKR's, rather than the editor's, hence the tongue- > in-cheek response?) that I've always taken it to be just that. As > Judy so graphically demonstrates, you have to jump through a lot of > rings to get 'ancestor' to make any sense. > Yes, I'd agree with 'British usage'. At least whenever I say 'ah, you've spotted the deliberate mistake' it translates as 'oops, I didn't catch that mistake, did I?' :-) You have to jump through a lot of hoops to get 'ancestor' to make sense (a lot more than you have to jump through to get a obviously High Medieval castle built in 9th Century Scotland [grin]- apologies for going off topic there). And the fact that later editions DO now have 'descendant' suggests it was a genuine error in wording. I think it has to be taken as canon that *as-far-as-Dumbledore- knows*, Tom Riddle has no children. Of course, this doesn't mean that he actually has no children, since it's possible that he may have one or two little bastards that he (and Dumbledore) don't know about. And the child him or herself may not know the identity of their real father. It depends how omniscient Dumbledore is - does he have a way of finding out things that people don't know about themselves? That quite possibly *no-one* living knows and is not in any known written record? He knows things about Harry that Harry doesn't know about himself; but that might be largely because he knew both of Harry's parents. Equally, the 'little bastard' theory might well apply to the 'last remaining Slytherin descendant'. There are no known descendants of Slytherin apart from Tom Riddle - but as Hermione points out in CoS, it's awfully difficult to prove or deny descent from someone who lived a thousand years ago; for all we know Harry, or his mother Lily, or Snape, or Hermione, or Dumbledore himself could all be descendants of Slytherin without actually knowing it. Pip From divaclv at aol.com Tue Jun 25 15:58:19 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:58:19 -0000 Subject: Sirius Animagus; Broomstick In-Reply-To: <000001c21c55$d55831c0$0ae46bd5@quack> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40322 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "LD" wrote: > Alexander wrote: > Let's be honest, what's the point of telling the Ministry that Sirius is > an Animagus? They already want to suck out his soul with a Dementor, > what more could they possibly do? And would they believe Snape even if > he *was* petty enough to tell them? No, I think Dumbledore took Snape > aside and ordered him not to tell Not only would it have gotten Sirius > into more trouble, but Remus also. Dumbledore must have had plans for > Lupin and Black later on :) Also, if I remember correctly, Snape knows that Sirius is an Animagus but doesn't know *what* his other form is. Without that information, trying to rat him out would be a moot point--how could he (or anyone else) find Sirius if he decided to take his other form? He wouldn't even know what species to look for, let alone any specific markings or characteristics. You'd think he'd probably put two and two together when Dumbledore let that huge black dog hang around Harry's sickbed, though... > > Great point, and one that's fairly easily resolved (for me at least). > Let's look at Ferrari for a second. Ferrari make very fast sports cars, > most of which could easily reach 200mph if given the chance. The fact > that the car can do 200mph is completely irrelevant though, because the > most you can do (on British roads at least) is 70mph. So just as with > the Firebolt, why is the excess speed there? > > Bragging rights. > I think you've hit the nail here. Think about car commercials for a second. You never see people driving them to the store, fighting morning traffic to get to work, or anything of the like, do you? They're always tearing down mountain roads at upwards of 60mph, navigating treacherous terrian, kicking up mud and dust everywhere they go. People as a whole are more impressed by what things can do then by what we use them for on a regular basis. > > Sure, the ability to stop and start almost instantaneously would be > good, but would the rider even be able to stay on the broom? > Accelerating to 200mpg in 2 seconds might *sound* impressive, but you > can bet that the rider would be tumbling towards the ground faster than > you can say "excessive power" I think where broomsticks are concerned as a whole, we have to assume there are spells in place that work around all those pesky physics problems (mostly dealing with how the rider manages to hang on to the blessed thing to begin with). Suspention of disbelief is a wonderful thing. ~Christi From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Tue Jun 25 16:03:30 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 11:03:30 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort descendents WAS BRAVE Riddle / Voldemort-Potter connection References: Message-ID: <3D189452.9050701@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40323 bluesqueak wrote: > > Yes, I'd agree with 'British usage'. At least whenever I say 'ah, > you've spotted the deliberate mistake' it translates as 'oops, I > didn't catch that mistake, did I?' :-) > > You have to jump through a lot of hoops to get 'ancestor' to make > sense (a lot more than you have to jump through to get a obviously > High Medieval castle built in 9th Century Scotland [grin]- apologies > for going off topic there). And the fact that later editions DO now > have 'descendant' suggests it was a genuine error in wording. Wasn't this switched back to ancestor in later editions? I have a middle editions that says descendant. Can someone with a later editions check to see what is says now? > I think it has to be taken as canon that *as-far-as-Dumbledore- > knows*, Tom Riddle has no children. Of course, this doesn't mean that > he actually has no children, since it's possible that he may have one > or two little bastards that he (and Dumbledore) don't know about. And > the child him or herself may not know the identity of their real > father. It is an enitrely possible for Riddle to have a child and D not know - it worked in Star Wars. The Emperor never knew that Vader had a child (he knew he had one, but not two! But this isn't a star wars chat is it?). This brings me to another point. Here's a snippet from an interview with Rowling: "Question: Is Voldemort some sort of relative of Harry's? Possibly his mother's brother? J.K. Rowling responds: I'm laughing...that would be a bit Star Wars, wouldn't it?" I don't think Rowling is going to make Harry and V related. I do think someone will end up being related to him. I actually kind of hope that it's Hermione. V is so bent on getting rid of mudbloods - I think it would be satisfying for him to learn that a direct decendent of his is muggle-born. I also think it would be wonderful if V didn't die in the end, but just lost all of his wizarding power. > Equally, the 'little bastard' theory might well apply to the 'last > remaining Slytherin descendant'. There are no known descendants of > Slytherin apart from Tom Riddle - but as Hermione points out in CoS, > it's awfully difficult to prove or deny descent from someone who > lived a thousand years ago; for all we know Harry, or his mother > Lily, or Snape, or Hermione, or Dumbledore himself could all be > descendants of Slytherin without actually knowing it. If anyone, Hermione would be the one to find out who is the actual descendant. I could just imagine the look in her face if she found out it was her! > > Pip Katze From cindysphynx at comcast.net Tue Jun 25 16:18:07 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:18:07 -0000 Subject: TBAY: HP and the Superfluous Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40324 The Captain hoisted her Omnioculars to her eyes and fixed on a scuffle aboard the GARBAGE SCOW. Dicentra was wrestling with Pippin, Debbie and David, while a young monkey dragged a canon that was much too big for it toward a castle in the distance. This could only mean one thing ? a *mutiny* aboard the GARBAGE SCOW! And Dicentra was already outnumbered! The Captain scowled and apparated to the deck of the GARBAGE SCOW, grabbed Dicentra's arm and wheeled her around. David, Debbie and Pippin backed away submissively, their open hands raised in a gesture of surrender, glancing furtively at a nearby life raft. "I just gave you this barge a few days ago and you've *already* lost control?" the Captain growled. "Why isn't this canon in the Landfill by now?" Dicentra wrenched her arm away and snapped off a wobbly salute. "They -- these Pirates -- they don't understand, ma'm. They seem to think that these canons are perfectly fine and don't belong in the Landfill at all. And they're attacking *your* canon too, Captain -- 'The Portkey' chapter -- saying it's *useful* or something!" "WHAT?!?!" the Captain cried. "You have found someone who actually thinks 'The Portkey' isn't superfluous? They . . . they *like* that chapter?" She glared at the Pirates, who were hurriedly dumping a life raft into the water. "Did you read to them from the Theory Bay Rulebook? *Please* tell me you cited the Theory Bay Rulebook," she implored. Dicentra shook her head slowly. "I would have, but you said you had the only copy and that I'd go *blind* ?" "Never *mind* that now!" the Captain snapped, pulling a small golden book from her vest pocket. "Whenever you get into trouble in the Bay, you just whip out the Theory Bay Rulebook." She flipped to a dog-eared page near the back. "There. 'Superfluous Canon ? Canon that is beyond what is required or sufficient; extra; overabundant; excess.' "And look at some of these examples," the Captain went on. "Oh, here's a really good one. Hermione's class schedule and the Time Turner in PoA. According to the Rulebook, Hermione's impossible class schedule is mentioned *eight* separate times, not including the numerous references to her edgy conduct. So the point is that it is possible to do *too* much. All those references to Hermione's class schedule were way too much, just as having a whole chapter to give us only *one* piece of important information that isn't covered quite nicely elsewhere ?- Portkeys -? was *too* much." "Does it *really* say all that?" Dicentra said, standing on tip-toe to peer over the Captain's shoulder. "'Cause last time you opened the Rulebook, I kind of thought you were just making all that stuff?" "Never question the Rulebook, sailor!" the Captain barked, closing it with a snap. "Finding Superfluous Canon is not all that difficult. If JKR is adding things to the text that do not enhance or establish plot twists or significant events and are not entertaining or clever in and of themselves, then they *belong* in the Landfill." "My point exactly!" cried Dicentra. "But how can I possibly convince *them*?" she said. She jerked her head in the direction of the Pirates, who had launched themselves overboard and were swimming desperately toward the life raft. "Ask them this one simple question. When they re-read GoF, do they ever go back and savor the drama, the tension, the creativity of 'The Portkey' chapter? No, they do *not*. Let's face it, sailor." The Captain leaned toward Dicentra and lowered her voice. "'The Portkey' is the single *worst* chapter in all of canon. I mean, there *has* to be a best chapter and a worst chapter, right? Well, 'The Portkey' is, without question, the *least* entertaining and *most* superfluous chapter in the series ? hands down." The Captain straightened and sighed heavily. "What *else* are these Pirates saying?" "It's hard to be sure, Captain," Dicentra began. "Pippin wants to know how could we be touched by the bereaved Diggorys if we hadn't met them in happier days?" "What?" the Captain asked, thunderstruck. "The point of mentioning Amos Diggory in 'The Portkey' is so we'll feel sorry for him at the end of the book? For heaven's sake, we meet the man a few pages later when he roughs up Winky in the forest. Amos also gets a chance to insult Harry right before the Third Task. Why isn't *that* a sufficient introduction to Amos Diggory, this minor character who has nothing at all to do with the main events in the story? "What else did Pippin say?" the Captain demanded, her voice rising. "Um," Dicentra said, rubbing her chin thoughtfully, "she was going on about how we need to know that Cedric is the rival Seeker who actually beat Harry at Quidditch." "You're . . . you . . . you've *got* to be *kidding*!" the Captain stammered. "What, we can't get that from a *single sentence* the first time we meet Cedric? When Seamus calls him 'pretty boy Diggory?' Or Amos can't taunt Harry right before the Third Task? No, we *have* to establish this little rivalry *over 600* pages before we are supposed to be so very moved by Amos' grief?" The Captain snorted derisively. "So we *have* to have this exchange about Harry losing at Quidditch at the top of a hill before we all touch a *boot*?" "But what about Portkeys?" Dicentra said quickly. "Pippin thinks the Portkeys are *important*. That justifies the chapter, doesn't it? I mean, we have to learn a lot about Portkeys. That's just good Flint-avoidance, right?" "Of course not!" the Captain said, flinging her hands into the air. "Sheez, the mere fact that Portkeys are important does *not* mean that this chapter doesn't belong in the Landfill. You want to know why?" Dicentra nodded slowly. "Because Portkeys are a simple concept, that's why! The only thing in the entire chapter that matters is the explanation of Portkeys. Which could have been done in a few paragraphs in either of the adjacent chapters. What, the Weasleys can't just *tell* Harry about Portkeys ? the way they tell him about Aurors, the Dark Mark, apparating, and lots of other things at the beginning of GoF? Or they can't just use the Portkey without all the dreary stuff about waking up and all the yawning? 'The Portkey' chapter is a whole lot of watching someone's boring morning routine just to give us *one* piece of basic information that isn't already established elsewhere. Why not just *spit it out* already rather than bury it in a chapter of people walking around getting breathless?" Dicentra asked, "Was that a question?" "*Yes*, it was a question!" the Captain spat. "And the answer is that JKR was under some serious deadline pressure. She just didn't think. She should have gone back and cut that entire chapter and tossed it into a *raging* fire. She should have then popped the Portkey information someplace else. Problem solved! Or better yet, she should have worked *harder* to make waking up and eating breakfast *interesting* so that we'd get some enjoyment out of that chapter. As it stands, 'The Portkey' is Superfluous and not at all entertaining. And *that's* why it's going *straight* to the Landfill!" The Captain leaned over the edge of the barge, scanning the Bay for the Pirates. She spotted them adrift in a small, leaky life raft, their chilled hands clutching especially small paddles, their life vests askew. The Captain cupped her hands over her mouth. "Did ya hear that, you Pirates?" she hollered. "'The Portkey' is outta here! It's rubbish, filler, refuse! It's *superfluous* and it has bogged down the first half of GoF for long enough, I say!" The Pirates dipped their paddles into the water and began stroking frantically, spinning pointlessly in a circle. Dicentra edged over to the Captain. "Is there, uh, anything else that belongs in the Landfill, ma'am?" Dicentra asked hopefully. "I've still got these two canons ? mine and the Big one you gave me. But I'd really *love* to have a third one. Another really Big one, if you don't mind." The Captain smiled slowly. "Oh, sure, anything to get this barge headed in the right direction." She pulled her copy of CoS from her back pocket and thumbed through it. "Let's go ahead and load this GARBAGE SCOW with every scene that contains the words 'Gilderoy Lockhart.'" ****************** Cindy From kerelsen at quik.com Tue Jun 25 16:34:53 2002 From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:34:53 -0400 Subject: Hogwarts Castle musings (was: Re: Voldemort descendents ) References: Message-ID: <008e01c21c66$3d256ce0$5721b0d8@kerelsen> No: HPFGUIDX 40325 ----- Original Message ----- From: "bluesqueak" > You have to jump through a lot of hoops to get 'ancestor' to make > sense (a lot more than you have to jump through to get a obviously > High Medieval castle built in 9th Century Scotland [grin]- apologies > for going off topic there). And the fact that later editions DO now > have 'descendant' suggests it was a genuine error in wording. I wish my daughter hadn't taken the books off with her to camp this morning so I could look up references. Is it actually specified in the books that the castle (as it is currently seen) has always been that way? Something the size and age of Hogwarts school isn't necessarily something that wizards would create all at once, as we see it in the "current day." I believe it is the school as an organization that is over a thousand years old. Not the building it currently resides in. Or at least, not the current incarnation of the building. The school maybe have been founded a thousand years ago on that site, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the initial buildings were created in the high style we think of when we see castles today. While motte and Bailey "castles" were the most numerous of the type in the 900s, there WERE stone keeps in Britain--and certainly in many other parts of the European and North African world--just not necessarily in what is now Scotland. The White Tower in the Tower of London is within a century of the founding of Hogwarts, and even accounting for its changes over time, I could conceive of the Founders being able to build a similar keep as the basis for their school (I do like the idea that they had to make it a defensive building--thanks to whomever it was who mentioned it). As Wizards, they could possibly have an easier time of putting a keep together simply because they could use magic. Just as with Muggles, there probably always were Wizards who were interested in more than just the basics of survival and who sought to invent and create, and may have discovered things like the Gothic Arch and flying buttresses earlier than the Muggles did. Over time, as the school grew, and the number of students increased, the original keep would have been added on to with the style changing as technology, architecture and fashion changed. Perhaps Snape's dungeons are partly made up of that original building, if any of it survives. We don't know how educated the Founders were outside of being powerful witches and wizards. We do not know if they were native to Britain or if they migrated there from other lands. We don't know what kind of knowledge they brought with them. Some people speculate that Salazar may have come from what is now Portugal. If so, he certainly could have been exposed to the arts, crafts and sciences of the Moors who invaded the Spanish peninsula--who were far in advance of the natives who lived there in so many areas , and provided a lot of inspiration for later development of architecture, poetry and suchlike that became hallmarks of the "high Middle Ages." One could expect the Founders and their successors to take the best they could discover to apply to their great project. As far as the subterranean chamber that became the Chamber of Secrets... even in Britain there are evidences of stone walled underground rooms... the various barrows and chambered tombs that are scattered about the island. If the idea of Salazar taking this "local" primitive architecture and improving on it is distasteful, then who's to say that he didn't travel in his lifetime and didn't explore things like the tombs and pyramids of Egypt? And other underground places that existed at the time (there were some exquisite temples for Mithra in existence, despite the best efforts of the Catholic church, well into the Middle Ages). In Rome, the catacombs were still reachable at that time. He could have seen them and then improved on the idea until he got what we now know as the Chamber of Secrets. Of course, until JKR decides to reveal what her conceptions of the Founding and Building of Hogwarts are, all we can do is speculate. It's fun. :) I rather like the idea that Hogwarts started out as a small defensive keep, and, like Topsy, just simply grew! Bernadette/RowanRhys "Life's greatest happiness is to be convinced we are loved." - Victor Hugo, Les Miserables, 1862 From nmfry at hotmail.com Tue Jun 25 16:41:06 2002 From: nmfry at hotmail.com (N Fry) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:41:06 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] race [book differences?] / cultures of readers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40326 Isn't it interesting how culture can effect the way that we read these books? Not just in the use of words, but also dealing with the assumptions and reactions we may potentially have. GulPlum wrote: >but I suspect that by Book Four, JKR had had a few comments more than >she'd have liked about the fact that on the whole, her characters at >least appear to be "too white". Me (not Rosie): I freely admit that I grew up with a very stereotypical view of the English - that whole prim, proper, white image that many Americans seem to have of British people. Because of that, it is my instinctive reading to not only assume that the vast majority of the characters are white, but to not even question that fact. My experiences have shown that many of the people I know don't realize the number of different ethnic groups living in that area. Which is why I was so interested in the next section of GulPlum's message, which I quoted below... >"Patil" is a bit of a giveaway. :-) I have no idea what the Indian >population is like in the USA, but over here (and especially in very >Asian areas like the one I live in), the Patils and Patels are all >over the place, anmd one doesn't need to think twice about where >they're from. :-) me: I grew up/live in rural Indiana = *very* white. I assumed that the Patils didn't have English names, but I wasn't immediately aware if they were taken from a particular ethnic group or if they were just interesting names that JKR had come up with. I suppose if I had thought about it a bit, I might have figured it out, but my original readings were purely for entertainment purposes. I didn't look to deeply into the means of names (other than the obvious ones, like Prof. Sprout). I wonder how many of the US kids who read these books realize that the Patils are Indian. God, I hope Scholastic doesn't start thinking along those lines... I has only kidding when I wrote my little "explanation" of their ethnicity (India Indians vs. US Indians) in my original message. For the most part, I don't think that US and UK cultures are so vastly different that my overall interpretation of the books are totally different than someone reading the UK versions. But I have noticed that I have different assumptions on some of the details. For example - the location of Hogwarts. Is it generally accepted that the school is located in Scotland, or is that just a proposed theory? I'll admit that it never even occurred to me that the school could be located anywhere other than England. Of course, that could also have to do with the fact that I can never keep straight the differences between England/UK/Britain/British Isles etc. ~ Nik (who has never stepped foot outside of the US, but would love to visit England some day) & (who is also posting her first message after graduating from moderated new member status. Yay me!) _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From sparky60 at bigpond.com Tue Jun 25 14:43:17 2002 From: sparky60 at bigpond.com (Peter and Denise Clements) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 00:43:17 +1000 Subject: Hagrid and others References: <1024950747.6023.68540.m1@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000e01c21c56$a53b7e60$0100a8c0@teddi> No: HPFGUIDX 40327 Hi, I think the reason that Hagrid's (and others) characters have been portayed to us in this way is simply to show tolerance. Hagrid is a half-giant who was discriminated against in his years at Hogwarts. I feel that Dumbledore is making a statement by having him on staff.... like a "You may have won the battle but you can't win the war" line of thinking. It showed to all the powers that be in the WW that he would not stand for intolerance and discrimination. I think this is the same reason that we are told of the racial background of some of the characters. It shows that Hogwarts is NOT an elite school. Having female quidditch players also shows that the school does not suffer from sexism. It shows that the WW is made up of so many different people from so many different backgrounds and that it's NORMAL, unlike our own dear world which is filled to the brim with bigots and racists. Tierney. (1st time post-er who will remember 20 other things that she wanted to say as soon as she posts this) From hyper_gal66 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 25 16:11:23 2002 From: hyper_gal66 at hotmail.com (trisanagranger) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:11:23 -0000 Subject: Book Differences - the future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40328 Ali wrote: > I understand why the US Publishers decided to "Americanise" the HP > books in the beginning. But now that Harry Potter is, err, quite > popular, surely its time for a rethink, surely now the American > Public could accept the "real" thing? > > I actually think that the average US HP reader would have no more > difficulty accepting the term "trainer" than the average Brit > would "sneaker". Most words can be easily understood by their > context. Well, that depends. If you're talking about a US HP reader age 12+, then you're right. Most people that age have no problem using "context clues" or whatever to figure out word's meanings. However, younger readers might have more of a problem. My 9-year-old brother has problems with the books as they are now. He doesn't know the definitions of a lot of words in HP, and he isn't old enough to figure out the meanings of words from the context of the book. I think that leaving the British words in the American editions would be very confusing for the younger US HP readers. -Trisana Granger (who hopes she didn't do anything wrong in her first post) From rvotaw at i-55.com Tue Jun 25 17:19:04 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:19:04 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort descendents WAS BRAVE Riddle / Voldemort-Potter connection Message-ID: <6913361.1025025544332.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40329 Pip writes: >I think it has to be taken as canon that *as-far-as-Dumbledore- >knows*, Tom Riddle has no children. Of course, this doesn't mean that >he actually has no children, since it's possible that he may have one >or two little bastards that he (and Dumbledore) don't know about. And >the child him or herself may not know the identity of their real >father. I'm still clinging to my "Tom Riddle is Harry's grandfather" theory. On the hypothesis that Lily's mom had a fling of sorts with Tom Riddle, when he was still Tom Riddle, pre-Voldemort. As to whether anyone knows about it-- I think that it's possible that no one at all knows. I've had a odd opinion about that gleam in Dumbledore's eyes at the end of GoF, I think he suspected it and somehow the blood thing affirmed it. Which if you want to really stretch it could make Harry both the heir of Slytherin and Griffyndor. (stretching it, like I said) >It depends how omniscient Dumbledore is - does he have a way of >finding out things that people don't know about themselves? That >quite possibly *no-one* living knows and is not in any known written >record? He knows things about Harry that Harry doesn't know about >himself; but that might be largely because he knew both of Harry's >parents. I think Dumbledore knows a lot more than most wizards, but not omniscient. He's been fooled before, so it's highly possible that Tom Riddle had a child and he didn't know. >Equally, the 'little bastard' theory might well apply to the 'last >remaining Slytherin descendant'. There are no known descendants of >Slytherin apart from Tom Riddle - but as Hermione points out in CoS, >it's awfully difficult to prove or deny descent from someone who >lived a thousand years ago; for all we know Harry, or his mother >Lily, or Snape, or Hermione, or Dumbledore himself could all be >descendants of Slytherin without actually knowing it. True. I still am holding out for Harry, though--it's those green eyes. There's something important there, that much has been said, but what? The only other connection to green is Slytherin. Which by the way is a big mistake in the SS movie due to the importance of the green eyes later on! BTW, I found a pic online of Daniel Radcliffe as HP in which his eyes had been edited to bright green--now that is Harry Potter! Speaking of eyes, does anyone know what color eyes Tom Riddle had? I reread that portion of CoS last night looking, and his eyes kept being mentioned, but never the color. Unless I missed it. Richelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 25 17:26:26 2002 From: Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk (pamscotland) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:26:26 -0000 Subject: race [book differences?] / cultures of readers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40330 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "N Fry" wrote: > Is it generally accepted that the school is located in Scotland, > or is that just a proposed theory? I'll admit that it never even occurred to > me that the school could be located anywhere other than England. Of course, > that could also have to do with the fact that I can never keep straight the > differences between England/UK/Britain/British Isles etc. We know that the Hogwarts Express travels north for a good many hours and that Harry and Ron fly over Peebles in the Ford Anglia. Peebles is in Scotland. JKR once said that nobody really knew where any of the schools were - but she was fairly sure that Hogwarts was in Scotland, Durmstrang was probably in northern Scandinavia near the Arctic Circle and that she imagined Beauxbatons would be somewhere on the French Riviera. Pam (Who has just returned to this group after an absence of probably at least a year or so. Why I've been absent - I don't know.) From fawkes at wizardingwireless.net Tue Jun 25 17:20:10 2002 From: fawkes at wizardingwireless.net (Dave Haber) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:20:10 -0700 Subject: UK Deluxe Versions/Hermione Lies/Hogwarts Population Message-ID: <000e01c21c6c$93abf100$800210ac@sm.edmundscorp.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40331 I've been wanting to buy UK versions of the books for some time now, but recent discussions here have renewed my interest in doing this again. I would really like to own the leather-covered deluxe versions, but are they the same, page-wise, as the standard version UK hard-cover books? I wouldn't want to get them if they make page-quoting useless... Please advise. I, too, am apalled by the CPness of the American versions, especially as regards to Dean Thomas. I think Scholastic should get a red card for that! :-) In an unrelated topic, it's been bothering me for quite a while as to why Hermione lied to Professor McGonagall about why she was in the bathroom in the troll incident in PS/SS. I read a very old post here, in which someone said that she was saving Harry and Ron from getting in trouble, since it was their fault that she was in there crying in the first place. I agree, that's true, but do you think Harry and Ron would have been held responsible for that by the teachers present? In the long run, isn't doing a bad thing and then making up for it by going out of their way to save her life much more noble than than just sensing she was in trouble and going to save her? Another unrelated topic: Since there were five Gryffindor first year boys in PS/SS, I assumed that meant there were 5 beds in the Gryffindor first year dorm. I futher assumed that there were ALWAYS 5 beds in that dorm. Logically, I therefore assumed there were always 5 boys and 5 girls in each year in each house. 10 students per year times 7 years equals 70 students in each house, for a total of 280 total students at Hogwarts, not a thousand as Gretchen mentioned in a thread about breakfast owls last week. Am I way off on this? For there to be 1000 students at Hogwarts, there would have to be 250 in each house and approximately 35 in each house in each year. Isn't that way too many? Could 250 students share the Gryffindor common room? -Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------- fawkes at wizardingwireless.net - Dave Haber -------------------------------------------------------------------- Wizarding Wireless Online - www.wizardingwireless.net -------------------------------------------------------------------- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 25 17:39:13 2002 From: Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk (pamscotland) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:39:13 -0000 Subject: Britishisms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40332 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sarah28962000" wrote: > Just wanted to add my two cents about the American/British versions - > I have only read the American version of all four books, but it seems > to me that some words are "translated" sometimes and not others - for > instance, Quidditch is played on a "field" most of the time, but I'm > sure I remember stumbling over the word "pitch" at least once (by the > way, I figured it out). I just hope that JKR doesn't decide that Quidditch has to keep up with football in Britain. When I was at school football was only ever played on a 'pitch', now it's only ever played on a 'park' it seems! Pam From Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk Tue Jun 25 17:50:51 2002 From: Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk (pamscotland) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 17:50:51 -0000 Subject: UK Deluxe Versions/Hermione Lies/Hogwarts Population In-Reply-To: <000e01c21c6c$93abf100$800210ac@sm.edmundscorp.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40333 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Dave Haber" wrote: > I, too, am apalled by the CPness of the American versions, especially as regards to Dean Thomas. I think Scholastic should get a red card for that! :-) A long, long time ago in a newsgroup far away - sorry - I don't think it was this one, somebody asked why there weren't more African Americans at Hogwarts and didn't their absence suggest racism, WASPishness or some such stuff. When I replied that I didn't think there were any Americans at Hogwarts, African or otherwise, but there may well be some black students as well as students of Asian or Oriental descent, the original poster had the temerity to suggest that the correct term for a black person - even in Britain - was African American! It seems to me that ethnicity become a much more sensitive subject for the American publishers and I would think that JKR would have had to take their advice. > snip< > Another unrelated topic: For there to be 1000 students at >Hogwarts, there would have to be 250 in each house and approximately >35 in each house in each year. Isn't that way too many? Could 250 >students share the Gryffindor common room? JKR herself has said that there are about 1,000 students at Hogwarts. She could, of course, be wrong! Pam From JPA30 at cam.ac.uk Tue Jun 25 19:21:09 2002 From: JPA30 at cam.ac.uk (archeaologee) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:21:09 -0000 Subject: Separated by a common language (WAS: Jim Dale, Stupid Americans etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40334 Christi wrote: > > The North American versions of the books don't translate words > > like "muggle" do they. > > > > > > No, but that's an entirely different issue. "Muggle" is Wizard > slang, not British slang, and so there's no real point in switching > it. Maybe American wizards have another word for non-magic types, > but since we haven't met any in the books yet (the Salem witches in > GoF don't count, since we only see them in passing) that's kind of a > moot point. I think my point needs clearing up a bit (I have a terrible habbit of writing an incomprehensible post that makes perfect sense to me, and is nonsense to all others). In the books JKR is very concious of how she uses language to define groups. The death eaters speak very diferently to the Weasley's, Dumbledore's conversation is a world away from Snape's, and even the poor Huflepuffs [how many f's ARE there in that word?] speak diferently than the Slytherins. The creation of a Wizarding World vocabulary is to give it a flavour of it's own, emphasise it's diference from Harry's world. Tolkein does the same in creating Elfish as a language, and yes I do mean Elfish not Elvish as he himself went balistic when the publishers (both in the UK and in the USA) 'corrected' this spelling. Harry does not grow up in North America. He would say Mum not Mom, and 'torch' not 'flashlight'. If the publishers are happy about showing the flavour of the wizard world by letting in words such as 'muggle' (which no child will know the meaning of) in with no more than a brief explanation by Hagrid as to what it means, then why lessen the feeling of the (similarly different from the US, but in a different way) English world by deciding that children (or others) will not understand the words as they were written and would have been used by the characters themselves [or is it themselfs *g*]. I still advocate a little glossary at the back so anyone who fails to understand a word could just flick to the back and get its 'real' meaning, rather than just changing the script. I personally believe this was a power thing. At first JKR has none and the publishing house has lots (hence the SS vs PS issue and the number of things changed in that volume) whereas now the situation is reversed and JKR has the power so there are far fewer 'corrections' to her script in the later books. We know from stories from the set of the film which must not be named that she is highly protective about her copy and I personally will be interested to see if at some future date the "translated into USglish" editions will disappear. James (who has been reading too much Marx and is really into relations of power at the moment) From lav at tut.by Tue Jun 25 19:40:23 2002 From: lav at tut.by (Alexander) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:40:23 +0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius Animagus; Broomstick In-Reply-To: <000001c21c55$d55831c0$0ae46bd5@quack> References: <000001c21c55$d55831c0$0ae46bd5@quack> Message-ID: <1501791662.20020625224023@tut.by> No: HPFGUIDX 40335 Greetings! > LD wrote: L> Bragging rights. L> You might only need an ancient 486 to type up the L> occasional letter on, but you still want that 2GHz P4 L> with that gorgeous flat panel monitor. It's a L> head-turner. I type this on 486! ;) IMHO you are right about "bragging rights". But that stil doesn't justify the choice of Firebolt as a primary broom for *professional* quidditch team. Professional car racers don't use sport cars - they drive their Formula bolids. ;) But brooms are not cars. In the air, the difference between sporting and racing brooms becomes *enormous*, starting from charms laid on it and ending with outwards appearance - sporting broom by definition must be several times tougher, as it is subject to multiple physical affections (bludgers, quaffle, other players, whatever). But frankly, the reason is much simpler - JKR simply knows nothing about numbers (yep, we have seen a lot of this already), and even less about aerial navigation. Of all her so-called "quidditch maneuvers" only one makes sense - Wronski Feint. Sad but true. L> Sure, the ability to stop and start almost L> instantaneously would be good, but would the rider even L> be able to stay on the broom? Accelerating to 200mpg in 2 L> seconds might *sound* impressive, but you can bet that L> the rider would be tumbling towards the ground faster L> than you can say "excessive power" Actually, Firebolt has a "non-inertial braking charm", or smth along this lines (not sure about translation back to English). So accelerating/deccelerating rates can be made as high as possible - whole thing is accelerated (player+broom) not only broom itself. BTW not sure about "non-inertial" thing. AFAIK it's smth not in the broom description when it's in the store, but this is what said by Lee Jordan on the game. And last. Firebolt does not have excessive power. Actually, given the acceleration rate of Firebolt, *even* without any "non-inertial" thing, acceleration is only about 0.75g. Compare this to accelerations experienced by pilots of military fighters (several g's) and you have a lot of space to improve. (If you want to see how to prevent the acceleration from throwing the rider off the broom, look the movie, the moment when Harry is catching the remembrall, several times, and then frame-by-frame. Surely the movie has something worth seeing). Sincerely yours, Alexander Lomski, Gryffindor/Slytherin crossbreed, always happy to throw weird ideas into community. Tuesday, June 25, 2002, 22:19 local time (GMT+2:00) From k_wayment at hotmail.com Tue Jun 25 20:16:32 2002 From: k_wayment at hotmail.com (hpfan04) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:16:32 -0000 Subject: Lily's Family Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40336 I'm not sure if this has been brought up before, but reading all the posts on the Evans family started me thinking. Some say that there are no references to Harry's parents and grandparents, etc., so it might be possible that Voldemort was Lily's father (I don't remember who said that, but I do like the theory). I don't really have a perfect theory for that, more something like Mrs. Evans had an affair with Voldie and here we have Lily. But, what if Lily was related to Dumbledore? In CoS (US paperback ed. page 245) it states that D had auburn hair. And it states in SS/PS (US ed. page 208) that Lily also has dark red hair. Of course, this could just be a coincidence. But what if? That would certainly explain why D was close to and "good friends" (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's stated somewhere in one of the books) with James and Lily Potter. Comments? ~Kyli (who has made a comeback from lurking) From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Tue Jun 25 20:28:17 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:28:17 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts in Scotland In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40337 Pam wrote: > We know that the Hogwarts Express travels north for a good many hours and that Harry and Ron fly over Peebles in the Ford Anglia. Peebles is in Scotland. Note for those unfamiliar with British geography. Kings Cross is the terminus for trains to the north-east of England and Scotland. On modern Muggle trains, when they are working properly (a big if these days after the Hatfield and Potter's Bar disasters, both on the KX line), if you travel for more than about four hours you will be in Scotland. Since the Hogwarts Express starts at 11:00 and continues past nightfall (ca 19:30 BST, depending slightly on latitude) at the beginning of September, the journey is over 8 hours. Even at the speed of steam trains, which the HE mimics, that would take you well inside Scotland. The description of the landscape, while not completely incompatible with parts of England not on the line, really evokes the Highlands too. Finally, we have the annotation of the Acromantula entry in FB (can't remember if by Harry or Ron), which states that the rumours of an Acromantula colony in Scotland can be confirmed. > Pam > (Who has just returned to this group after an absence of probably at > least a year or so. Why I've been absent - I don't know.) Welcome back! David From crana at ntlworld.com Tue Jun 25 20:49:28 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:49:28 +0100 Subject: Political Correctness/Race/Book differences - I did not write that - Fags - Brave!Riddle - Hermione's Parents - Words - Race again References: Message-ID: <008801c21c89$ccd05da0$973468d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40338 Nik wrote: "Meanwhile, some people have suggested that Parvati and Padma Patil might be Indian, based on the Hindu inspirations for their names." Also, Patel/Patil is a really common surname for people of Indian background in Britain, and their appearance also *suggests* this - long dark plaits, and lots of jangly bracelets. --------------- LD wrote: "I'm surprised they didn't add "Turpin, Lisa was next, a disabled girl in a Wheelchair. She didn't need to sit on the stool, because she's always sitting down. Because she's disabled. And having disabled people is good, and means we can't be seen as evil. Yep." My thoughts exactly. I hope no one who uses a wheelchair ever needs to go to Hogwarts.. all those staircases! :S ----------------- Richard (GulPlum) wrote: "rosie wrote: > The character that really caught my attention, > though, was Angelina Johnson. In the US hardcover GoF, when she comes to > breakfast after putting her name in the goblet (Ch 16 pg 261), she is > described as a "tall Black girl." I don't have my other books with me to > double check, but I don't remember her being described this way in any of > the other books." No I didn't write that !! --------------------------- Debbie wrote: "This is the one possible circumstance that IMO would justify changes in the text; fag is an offensive term here in the U.S. and though the context might make clear that something else was intended, Christi's example illustrates that it's not always clear." But... "fag" is an offensive term in the UK too! ----------- Judy Serenity said: "And Eloise (who really didn't need to apologize for the Latin discusison) replied: > ... I always read that the opposite way: that the 'bravery' in > question was just part of the act that Riddle was putting on.... > I interpret it as his mocking the gullibility of Dippet... > BTW, is it really capitalised? in my UK version, it's italicised... Ah, that's a good interpretation; in fact, I think I like it better than my own. (And you are right, it's italicized, not capitalized.)" I read it that way too. However, my interpretation of the books is sometimes coloured by the way I usually *listen* to them first... on the tape... Tom's voice is very sneery and mocking. I also thought it was to do with the way, whenever people hear that, for example, a person is disabled or is an orphan or whatever, most often their response is something to do with how brave the person must be. ----------- Katze said: "V is so bent on getting rid of mudbloods - I think it would be satisfying for him to learn that a direct decendent of his is muggle-born." Does it count as muggle-born if you are of half-squib descendence? Because I think there's (probably) only one generation between Voldemort and Hermione, meaning one of her parents would have to be a squib. So far, the only squib we have seen (Filch) remains in the WW... and when Neville described how his family thought he might be a squib.. he never mentions them saying "Oh no, we will have to send you to live with Muggles you poor squib" or anything similar. I know some children are half witch/wizard, half muggle, so I suppose squib/muggle would be possible... but if squibs tend to stay in the WW and work there (ie Filch), I can't see Hermione's parent being a dentist. I agree though:) it would be nice. ----------- Trisana wrote: "My 9-year-old brother has problems with the books as they are now. He doesn't know the definitions of a lot of words in HP, and he isn't old enough to figure out the meanings of words from the context of the book. I think that leaving the British words in the American editions would be very confusing for the younger US HP readers." Is it just me, or are some of the words JKR uses quite difficult anyway? Not for adults, but for 9 year olds... did he have trouble with any of the others? I still reckon that a glossary, or footnotes, would have been a nice solution. Oh well... ------------------ Pam said: "When I replied that I didn't think there were any Americans at Hogwarts, African or otherwise, but there may well be some black students as well as students of Asian or Oriental descent, the original poster had the temerity to suggest that the correct term for a black person - even in Britain - was African American!" That is really stupid. A lot of people here refer to themselves as, for example, British Muslim. On forms and whatever, they sometimes have boxes like "British African" but most people I know would just describe themselves as being a black British person. I always find it quite interesting that they have loads of different boxes for where anyone with a skin that's not white might come from, and then just one for "White" (ok, sometimes they have White - Irish too). The implication being that it's not really your origin that matters, just your colour, or "ethnic group" as they like to say. Right - I'm wandering OT. Sorry. Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From suzchiles at pobox.com Tue Jun 25 20:56:25 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 13:56:25 -0700 Subject: Question for Hagrid Disapprovers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40339 I have a question that I'd like to put those of you who disapprove of Hagrid. It's clear to me, a self-confessed Hagrid lover, that JKR loves Hagrid and clearly meant for him to be a sympathetic character and one of the good guys. Do you believe that she believes Hagrid to be a dismal failure whose character flaws are so great that he is destined to cause Harry and/or Dumbledore great harm? Or do you believe that JKR meant to write a good guy, but failed miserably? Zoe aka Suzanne Chiles www.suzchiles.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From oppen at cnsinternet.com Tue Jun 25 21:11:04 2002 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:11:04 -0500 Subject: Harry Potter Tarot Message-ID: <001401c21c8c$d145b1c0$0887aa41@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 40340 I have a friend who is a serious Tarot-card collector. I asked her if there was any such thing as a Harry Potter Tarot, since she would know. (She deals in tarot decks to other collectors, among other things.) She said that such a thing had been brought up to JKRowling's people by the biggest Tarot-publisher, and it turned out that there were so many conditions attached to it that the Tarot people basically backed out of it. I can think of a lot of things that would go well in a HP Tarot, though...let me see...Major Arcana... Harry Potter (natch!) as the Magician Hagrid as the Hermit Voldemort as Death Cedric and Cho (or Arthur and Molly Weasley, or Harry's parents) as the Lovers James Potter as Strength MoM Cornelius Fudge as the Hierophant Professor McGonagall as the Empress Dumbledore as the Emperor and so on, and so on... From oppen at cnsinternet.com Tue Jun 25 21:26:24 2002 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 16:26:24 -0500 Subject: The Sorting of the Trio Message-ID: <001a01c21c8e$f6180be0$0887aa41@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 40341 Although I yield to few in my admiration for JK Rowling, I do think that she rather missed a bet in the first part of the books, when the Trio were Sorted. I could make a case that the books would be more evocative, and in some ways more interesting, if they had all three been sent into...Slytherin! We have the Hat's own word, issued twice, that Harry himself would have done well in Slytherin. Ron has a burning desire to outshine his brothers, or at least to be out from under their shadows---and they were all Gryffindors, so how better than to be a Slytherin? He also hates being poor, which has often translated into ambition to better one's financial situation. As for Hermione, she's got drive and talent, and IMO shows incredible ambition to be the _best_ witch she can be...which strikes me, at least, as far more the sort of ambition that a Salazar Slytherin would have wanted to see in his picked pupils. So-o-o, how does this sound as a slightly-alternate Harry Potter storyline? HP and his two pals are sorted into Slytherin, which has never recovered, reputation-wise, from the Voldemort and Death Eater scandals. They find themselves rather on-the-outs with the rest of the school _just because they're Slytherins,_ and vow to recoup Slytherin House's good name somehow. Their adventures go about as they do in our own version, but Gryffindor House is the big favorites for the House and Quidditch Cup, and is distinctly favored over Slytherin by most of the teachers. (If you think Snape was bad, try being in Professor McGonagall's doghouse sometime!) The big change-of-decor at the end of PS/SS is because _Slytherin_ has won the House Cup, thanks to the Trio, for the first time since the memory of man (or at least student) runneth not to the contrary, and although the Slyths are rejoicing and lionizing the Trio, the other houses just hate the Slyths even more for "snatching it away" from Gryffindor at the last minute. Draco Malfoy exists, and is in Slytherin, in this "alternate" version, but he starts out as a friend and close associate of the Trio. One of the tragic aspects of the books is them having to watch helplessly as Draco is drawn deeper and deeper into the bowels of the Dark Side, under the influence of his father. Besides having to fight the Big V, as well as the other houses' dislike of their house, the Trio have to cope, somehow, with the fact that not even everybody in _their own_ house approves of what they're doing and wants them to succeed. This would be an additonal challenge to them---in our own version of the HP books, they can count pretty closely on Gryffindor House being behind them. So--comments? Howlers? Anything? *dons Howler-proof armour* From witchwanda2002 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 25 21:33:43 2002 From: witchwanda2002 at yahoo.com (Wanda the Witch) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 14:33:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Britishisms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020625213343.53793.qmail@web13701.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40342 sarah28962000 wrote: The best was when my daughter got mad at me and called me a "stupid git" which is definitey not something an American kid would normally say. Too bad there's no curse words in the books, it would really increase her vocabulary. Sarah Have her watch the Britcoms on your local PBS Station or rent videos of Red Dwarf, Keeping Up Apparences, Are You Being Served?, Waiting for God, Vicar of Dibley, As Time Goes By, or even the British Mysteries! My kids were raised on the Britcoms and learned quite a few of slang words to throw back to some of the scholl bullies! Especially stupid git and SMEGHEAD! That's from Red Dwarf! Doctor Who is hard to find, but loved it, and when it is on, we watch that too! They listened to the radio version of Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy! Very funny! But we knew the differences because of watching British Shows. Love their Slang! Schnoogles, Wanda the Witch of Revere,Massachusetts and Her Very Merry Band of Muggles 100 % aka 3 Stooges! "When you come to the edge of all the light you know, and are about to step off into the darkness of the unknown, faith is knowing one of two things will happen; There will be something solid to stand on, or you will be taught how to fly."......Unknown. --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ahector at postmaster.co.uk Tue Jun 25 19:55:36 2002 From: ahector at postmaster.co.uk (Allison Hector) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:55:36 +0100 Subject: BRAVE Riddle / Voldemort-Potter connection Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40343 An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From lroesler77 at hotmail.com Tue Jun 25 20:10:48 2002 From: lroesler77 at hotmail.com (sadiekat5) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 20:10:48 -0000 Subject: Quirrell's "death" in PS/SS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40344 Hello all, First time poster here, as well. I think most of the questions and qualms first brought up in the original post have been addressed, but I just wanted to reply to the comment about JKR's prose. I agree that JKR is very intentional with what she writes. Along those lines, I think her intention in saying "[Voldemort] left Quirrell to die" is not so much to leave us hanging as to follow up on Voldemort's characterization. With the phrasing used in the book, Voldemort is directly implicated as at least part of the cause of Quirrell's death, if not all of it (perhaps because he was unwilling to suffer in a weaker body or endure capture). Further, I believe it is also implied that this is done without any remorse or second thoughts. This shows us not only how he treats his enemies, but how he treats his allies, indeed his closest of allies--Quirrell who allowed Voldemort to inhabit his body. To say "Quirrell died after Voldemort left" removes Voldemort grammatically, whereas "[Voldmort] left Quirrell to die" makes he-who-must-not-be-named the subject carrying out the action. Or perhaps I am taking this too far--the result of too many years in college English classes. Sadie From Edblanning at aol.com Tue Jun 25 22:04:46 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 18:04:46 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts Castle musings (was: Re: Voldemort descendents ) Message-ID: <11a.12ec1651.2a4a42fe@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40345 OK, I'm going to have one more go at this topic, *which only arose to show that Muggle history and wizard history don't necessarily mix and that we can't decree what wizards in the past did or didn't do by reference to known historical facts.* (1) I think this is on topic. At least it certainly started on-topic. Unfortunately I may have to stray a bit in order to defend my position, for which I apologise in advance. As far as I'm concerned, JKR could have set the whole thing in a fifth century spaceship. The same principle would apply. I'd happily go along with it in the context of this piece of literature, but it wouldn't be consonant with what we know of Muggle history. Bernadette: > Is it actually specified in the books that the castle (as it is > currently seen) has always been that way? > No, I don't think that it does specify that Hogwarts has never changed. > age of Hogwarts school isn't necessarily something > that wizards would create all at once, as we see it in the "current day." I > believe it is the school as an organization that is over a > thousand years old. Not the building it currently resides in. > Or at least, not the current incarnation of the building. > That is the sensible answer. JKR says that they built a 'castle', though. > > The school maybe have been founded a thousand years ago on that > site, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the initial buildings > were created in the high style we think of when we see castles > today. No argument here. > > of the type in the 900s, there WERE stone keeps in Britain--and > certainly in many other parts of the European and North African > But here, I beg to differ. My knowledge is of Saxon and Romanesque architecture, so I''ll confine myself to that here (meaning that I have no detailed knowledge of Scotland during what in England is the Saxon period). The Saxons, according to my understanding, did *not* build motte and bailey castles, wooden or otherwise. They had defended settlements (*burghs*) and in the late Saxon period, thegnly residences were sometimes surrounded by a defensive ditch . They also sometimes incorporated a 'thegnly tower', such as that which survives as the church tower at Earls Barton (Northants). But these were not the same as 'stone keeps' and their stone manifestations were late. That at Porchester Castle (don't get confused by the name, it's a Roman fort, whose defensive walls were repeatedly reutilised at later dates) wasn't built until the beginning of the 11th century. But the motte and bailey was a Norman introduction. > > The White Tower in the Tower of London is within a century of the > founding of Hogwarts, and even accounting for its changes over > time, I could conceive of the Founders being able to build a > similar keep as the basis for their school (I do like the idea > that they had to make it a defensive building--thanks to whomever > it was who mentioned it). As Wizards, they could possibly have > an easier time of putting a keep together simply because they > The White Tower dates from c 1078, and was a secular building of a scale completely unprecedented in England since the end of the Roman Empire. It was very much a power statement designed to assert the authority of the new Norman regime. But I guess the founders could have got the idea of a large stone keep from the continent where they were found earlier. The earliest reference to (not example of) castles of which I know does indeed date from 864, but that is in a decree from Charles the Bald, king of the western Franks. Castles in the medieval, monumental mould seem to have developed in the Loire valley, chiefly as a result of the endeavours of the notorious Fulk Nerra, Duke of Anjou (987-1040) who was rather fond of building them in furtherance of his expansionist aims. The founders would have had to build such a keep by magic, though, unless they imported a large workforce from overseas. :-) It was I who pointed out the defensive nature of castles, BTW. > > As far as the subterranean chamber that became the Chamber of > Secrets... even in Britain there are evidences of stone walled > underground rooms... the various barrows and chambered tombs that > are scattered about the island. Not quite on the scale of the Chamber of Secrets, though :-). Most barrows and chambered tombs are more or less at ground level with a mound raised *over* them. There are of course the Iron Age fogous of Cornwall, similar to Breton souterrains(2), but these are not very deep. Perhaps the nearest parallel is found in the underground chambers sometimes associated with Scottish Iron Age brochs (3), or the famous isolated Iron Age chamber at Mine Howe on Orkney (4). They too are not nearly on the same scale. Again, I think that magic would *have* to have been employed to excavate something the size of the Chamber of Secrets. Hey, perhaps we should just push the founding of Hogwarts all the way back to the Iron Age. Then it can have started life as a broch, complete with secret underground chamber, enchanted to grow with the basilisk it contained. ;-) Eloise 1. I wrote that in desperation to get my point across, as I don't believe there is any such thing as historical 'truth'. 2.Underground chambers, associated with settlements, of unknown function, but possibly for the storage of seed grain. 3. Iron Age drystone towers found in Atlantic Scotland (architecturally very sophisticated for the region at the time). 4. For a virtual tour, visit http://www.channel4.com/history/timeteam/archive/2000minehow.html [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From naama_gat at hotmail.com Tue Jun 25 22:26:42 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:26:42 -0000 Subject: TBAY: HP and the Superfluous Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40346 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > > "Ask them this one simple question. When they re-read GoF, do they > ever go back and savor the drama, the tension, the creativity > of 'The Portkey' chapter? No, they do *not*. Let's face it, > sailor." The Captain leaned toward Dicentra and lowered her > voice. "'The Portkey' is the single *worst* chapter in all of > canon. I mean, there *has* to be a best chapter and a worst > chapter, right? Well, 'The Portkey' is, without question, the > *least* entertaining and *most* superfluous chapter in the series ? > hands down." > I love that chapter. Here's a list of the things I liked in it and the things that I think are important bits of information: 1. Arthur showing Harry his rather ridiculous Muggle outfit ("a golfing jumper and a very old pair of jeans"). 2. Explanation of Apparating; grisly but funny description of splinching; story of Charlie landing "on top of some poor old dear doing her shopping". 3. First mention of Accio, the Summoning Charm. 4. The row between Molly and F&G about the Ton Tongue toffees (necessary for the whole drama of her remorse when they return). 5. Arthur explains to Harry the difficulties of organizing the World Cup, including the use of Portkeys. 6. Introducing Amos Diggory and his pride in his only son, Cedric; Amos saying "I said to him, I said - Ced, that'll be something to tell your grandchildren, that will ... *you beat Harry Potter*!" (I just love that!) 7. Showing Cedric's innate modesty and decency ("Cedric looked slightly embarrassed..."). All this, however, is not really the point. We can argue whether it's necessary to show Accio here, when it's going to be described more fully further on. We can argue whether certain lines are entertaining or not. The superfluity or otherwise of a chunk of text is a very subjective matter. For instance. Quidditch itself is, after all, not really relevant to the major plot, is it? Should it be scrapped altogether from the books? Some people, actually, would say 'yes', because they personally find those parts very boring and unentertaining. For them, all the large chunks of text that are devoted to Quidditch matches are superfluous - neither informative nor entertaining. However, I think you would agree that they certainly aren't the product of sloppy writing or editing, right? It's a matter of subjective enjoyment of this or that part or aspect of the story. I personally enjoy chapters like the Portkey precisely because they are more descriptive and less dramatic than other chapter. For instance, I don't like rereading the dramatic denouement chapters - they're too tense for me to enjoy on second rereading. I like the leisurely parts, where I can just enjoy being in a different and very likable world. I like the chitchat parts and lines like: "Had to wait for the Accidental Magic Reversal Squad to sort them out. Meant a fair old bit of paperwork, I can tell you, what with the Muggles who spotted the body parts they'd left behind .." A rather different aspect of this, is the need for a certain thickness of description in a novel (bastardizing Clifford Geertz here). It seems to me, Cindy, that if JKR were to follow your project of leaving only the parts that are informative and important plot wise, we would be left with an abstract of a novel - not the novel itself. For instance, in order for us to become interested in Harry's special destiny, green eyes and scar, we need, in the first place, to care about Harry. For that, we need to *know* him (in the sense of get to know), get a sense of who he is. Would we feel for an with him if the books told us only those thoughts and feelings that he has that are crucial to the plot? I doubt it. A description of Harry's anxiety before a Quidditch match may not "enhance or establish plot twists or significant events" and may not be "entertaining or clever in and of themselves", but they *may* add density, thickness, depth, to the reader's sense of Harry the person - and that is (IMO) a necessary condition for the reader's involvement in the story. Naama From bard7696 at aol.com Wed Jun 26 00:02:59 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 00:02:59 -0000 Subject: Hagrid and others In-Reply-To: <000e01c21c56$a53b7e60$0100a8c0@teddi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40347 Tierney wrote: > > I think the reason that Hagrid's (and others) characters have been > portayed to us in this way is simply to show tolerance. Hagrid is a > half-giant who was discriminated against in his years at Hogwarts. I feel > that Dumbledore is making a statement by having him on staff.... like a "You > may have won the battle but you can't win the war" line of thinking. It > showed to all the powers that be in the WW that he would not stand for > intolerance and discrimination. > Hey, we've seen that Dumbledore will accept werewolves, half-giants and maybe even a half-vampire, if one theory about Snape is true. And Dumbledore's not-so-subtle comments on pure-blood versus muggle- born also speak to this. Perhaps it is a touch heavy-handed, but there are worse things to be heavy-handed about. > I think this is the same reason that we are told of the racial background of > some of the characters. It shows that Hogwarts is NOT an elite school. > Having female quidditch players also shows that the school does not suffer > from sexism. It shows that the WW is made up of so many different people > from so many different backgrounds and that it's NORMAL, unlike our own dear > world which is filled to the brim with bigots and racists. Different nationalities acknowledges several things, both in the Potterverse and the real world. 1) Cities as large as London, which sheer statistics would seem to dictate is where the majority of the Hogwarts students would be from, have diverse populations. There are blacks of African descent, of Caribbean descent, Pakistani, Asian, and all other races and nationalities. I mean, what's the real HARM of having a smattering of these races acknowledged? 2) Apparently, Hogwarts was founded by four people of different nationalities. Godric Gryffindor might be British, but Salazar Slytherin strikes me as Latin (maybe Moorish?) and Helga Hufflepuff and Rowena Ravenclaw need not necessarily be British. (Perhaps Hufflepuff is an English-izing of a good Germanic name.) So, it stands that whatever the faults of the Hogwarts Four, racism might not have been among them. Having said that, I'd be anxious to hear a few History of Magic lessons on the first Pakistani student at Hogwarts, or how black wizards and witches were treated while black Muggles were being made slaves. 3) Being diverse helps increase book sales by being more appealing to different people. And politically correct? What exactly does that mean? It's become a goofy term to throw around. The last resort of the liberal is to call someone a racist. The last resort of the conservative is to call someone politically incorrect. Acknowledging that there are other races and cultures besides the white race is HARDLY a bad thing. So, if one of the Gryffindor players happens to be a black girl, big deal. And throwing out ethnic names or acknowledging races is one of the least clumsy ways to do it, unless you'd rather see "Hogwarts is an Equal Opportunity Employer" on every invitation. You notice that the same black girl went to the Yule Ball with Fred Weasley, a red-headed white kid. Doesn't look to me like the kids have a problem with it. Why should we? > Tierney. (1st time post-er who will remember 20 other things that she wanted > to say as soon as she posts this) Darrin Hey, welcome. I just got unmoderated myself. Makes me feel a little like Neville when he got dropped out that window. From chetah27 at hotmail.com Wed Jun 26 00:03:09 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 00:03:09 -0000 Subject: Defense of Hagrid, Hagrid's Teaching, Flobberworms, etc.(long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40348 Some of this I'm a little late in getting to, I know. But I've been really busy, so sorry. Heidi: >>And I agree with Jenny that there is no reason why Hagrid should've exposed a class of 13 year olds to a creature with razor sharp talons. Even if one of them hadn't been deliberately inattentive, there were SO many things that could've gone wrong, that it was an inherently risky thing to do.>> I just can't see that this as inherently risky. They're all training to be wizards and witches, for one. Hagrid, also, is a half- giant and would be a match for any Hippogriff, I daresay. If you want to say exposing a group of kids, *armed with their wands and three years of magical training* to some magical creatures is risky, then there are alot of things that regular schools do that are "risky". Putting a bunch of teenage boys in a locker room with heavy objects is risky. If you're lifting said heavy objects over your neck and are not careful, you can seriously injure yourself or kill yourself. I know a guy at my school recently that broke his collarbone while weightlifting. Science class can be "risky". Using the bunsen burner, exposing teenage kids to what can be harmful chemicals...risky risky. And then look at Potions class! Just having Neville anywhere near a cauldron is risky, and then to have Snape breathing down his neck...that's a combination for danger, that is. =P But we all trust Snape to be a good teacher and not let anyone get SERIOUSLY injured. Sure, he may let the Slytherins flick a few newt eyes at the Gryffindors, and he'll give any Gryffindor that dares throw a dragon liver detention faster than they can say "quidditch"... but he does keep the kids from killing each other, so that's good. Now, if we can trust Sanpe and his biast self to conduct Potions with the Slytherins and Gryffindors and keep them from poisoning each other, why can't we trust Hagrid to be able to control a few "interestin' creatures"? And, to continue going on about the "risky" teaching thing, basically any hands-on learning you're going to do can turn risky, and anytime anything goes wrong there's always a sign of possible danger. But these are magical kids. And aren't these the same kids that, whenever they're scared or hurt, can make things happen? I don't see the hippogriffs as being a bad choice by Hagrid. The Flobberworms, on the other hand, weren't a good idea at all. They were just so utterly boring(but then again, if you're going to say someone is a bad teacher because they teach their subject in the most boring manner, you can go and yell at Proffessor Binns *g*). But Hagrid is learning, he does start doing his job in book 4 when he teaches about Nifflers and Unicorns. Jenny: >>Ah, but the situation with Hermione is when Hagrid *is* doing his job. It is great for him to be there as someone older and more experienced who can listen to Hermione (or Harry or Ron) and give advice. That is when Hagrid is really being a teacher, IMO. It is when he breaks down and cries to them that he loses all of his points with me.>> Why, though? Why is it a bad thing for Hagrid to relate some of his problems to the open ears of his friends? It's not like he's constantly waiting around outside the Gryffindor common room for Harry and Co. so he can load off some of his problems on his famous friends. No, IIRC, the Trio are always the ones that seek Hagrid out in concern, and only when they do so does he allow them to know what's got him so worked up. Hagrid does wear alot of his emotions on his sleeve, but he also doesn't seem to like to bother people with his problems. And I can relate to that. He's not going to seek out people to talk to about his problems, he figures they've got enough to deal with- Harry especially. I htink Hagrid is a great friend to the Trio- he's there for them, as he is for Hermione, but they're also there for him. Friendships are a two-way thing, you know. The Trio might just be the ones that make Hagrid finally grow up. Infact, he does seem to be somewhat, doesn't he? Caroline pointed out: >>Hagrid's curriculum does get better after Rita Skeeter's article (a year and a half after he begins teaching). He teaches a class on Nifflers. (Maybe Professor Grubbly-Plank left him some lesson plans.) It's pretty good, possibly his best class ever. It looks like he's got some confidence. And IIRC, we don't see him drinking after the Yule Ball.>> Hagrid might be growing up right along with the Trio. Is it a little late? Yes, but I really can't bring myself to blame Hagrid for that. His education came to a dead halt at 13. A 13 year old, with no family(his dad died in his 2nd year at Hogwarts, I believe), now an outcast because he's blamed for releasing/controlling a moster that killed a girl and attacked students...and then Dumbledore, taking pity, was able to get him to be kept on as Gamekeeper. I wonder if there was a lull between that, though? As has been pointed out, Hagrid didn't go straight from being kicked out of Hogwarts to being Gamekeeper. No, and Dumbeldore wasn't even Headmaster when Hagrid got kicked out- so how would he have gotten Hagrid the job? Was there a lull when Hagrid was left to fend for himself for awhile? This could be why he's so fond of the pubs. I can see Hagrid taking up residence at one and trying to be a bus boy or something to try and make a living. Hmm... Jenny: >>Would you accept a job offered to you if you knew you couldn't handle it? I wouldn't. To me, that is part of what being responsible is: accepting your limits. Hagrid did not do that, training or no training. The sad thing to me is that Hagrid actually has an *excellent* background in the care of magical creatures, but his bias towards the dangerous ones combined with his general insecurities prevent him from being the teacher he could be. I don't buy the "he didn't ask for it" excuse; there are plenty of things we are all asked to do in our lives and when we say yes, we must accept the responsibilities that come with our decisions. Either way, Hagrid is the one who ultimately failed at the position.>> Did the thought that he couldn't "handle it" ever cross Hagrid's mind? Nope, I don't think it did. He's been around Hogwarts for a looong time. He certainly seems to know the Forest pretty well, and there are tons of "interestin creatures" in there. And I don't doubt that Hagrid could handle the CoMC job, either. His students, though? Eh. Draco obviously couldn't handle listening to instructions long enough to mount a hippogriff- which, IIRC, the other students seemed to be doing just fine. I know there's a mention in the scene, after Harry has ridden Buckbeak and before Draco insults him, that students were tentatively approaching the creatures and doing just as instructed. Did any of them get attacked? Nope. Hagrid could handle the job, but some of his students couldn't. As for the Flobberworm thing...hmm, I got out PoA and just sat down and re-read some of it. It hints that Hagrid had talked to the Governors. **"School gov'nors have bin told, o' course," said Hagrid miserably. "They reckon I started too big. Shoulda left hippogriffs fer later...done flobberworms or summat...Jus' thought it'd make a good firs' lesson.... 'S all my fault...."** PoA, US Paperback edition, Pg 121. That could be interpreted that the Governors suggested that Hagird do flobberworms, and that could be why he did them all year. He didn't want to have to be brought before the Governors again- the same ones that had had Dumbledore removed last year on Malfoy's orders- The same Malfoy whose son is in Hagrid's class. Jenny: >>I'm sorry, but he is not supposed to be Harry's friend. I am there for my students and I've listened to many a sob story, have given advice and have laughed with my students many times. They even know a bit about my life - but I DO NOT cry to them or expect them to help me if I make a mistake. I don't tell them when I am having problems at home and I don't expect them to pick me up when I am down. In fact, they never know if I am dealing with somethig outside of school because I keep that to myself. I don't care what position Hagrid has at Hogwarts; he should not EVER have Harry and Co. helping him out and sneaking around in the middle of the night when he messes up. Hagrid needs to learn how to take better care of himself.>> Hagrid only talks to the Trio about his problems. He doesn't go moping around the class trying to dump an emotional load on whatever student is willing. He only talks to the Trio(after they have sought him out, mind you), because they are his friends. They were his friends before he became their teacher, and I don't see why that should change. IMHO, Hagrid being the Trio's friend is NOT a bad thing. And helping friends through problems and tough times is part of friendship- and I don't think he ever expects them to help. They always seek out him, IIRC. As for the Norbert incident...the only defense I can provide off the top of my head is that he never dumped Norbert in Harry's arms and just left it up to him to getting rid of it. Nope, the Trio had to practically wrench Norbert away from him, and they only did so because they cared for the well-being of their friend Hagrid. Jenny: I also think he gave Rita Skeeter plenty of dirt, on himself as well as on Harry. Where? Show me where. I remember Hagrid telling the Trio that Rtia ONLY asked him about Harry, if Harry where a bad kid or ever tried to up Hagrid in class and such. Hagrid told Rita that no, Harry was a great kid. Which, of course, pissed Rita off. And that did no harm except to Hagrid, by causing Rita to buzz about looking for some dirt on him. Infact, it might not even have happened that way. Beetle! Rita could have just ended up in the right place at the right time to hear Hagrid's little confession to Madame Maxime. Jenny: The scene in SS with the Dursleys is wonderful and the way he slammed Karkaroff against the tree in GoF is maybe how he should have allowed himself to react to Draco in PoA for being such a poor student. Oh, come one. If Hagrid had layed a finger on Draco, Hagrid-Haters everywhere would be outraged that a teacher would do so to a student- no matter how much Draco deserved it. No, I must say Karkaroff deserved it, but Hagrid was dealing with a full-fledged, Death-Eating wizard; slamming a child, one as panicky(I really can't believe Draco, who is supposed to be a cunning Slytherin, decides that he is dead when lolling around on the floor after Buckbeak clawed him) and spoiled as Draco around is not the right thing, nor a Hagrid thing to do. Jenny: He could have so easily turned the tables on Draco, claiming that Draco put the entire class at risk when he didn't listen to directions and provoked a hippogriff. And the only one that would've listened would have been Dumbledore. Jenny: Isn't there a scene when he runs off crying in front of the class? I believe it is in PoA when Hermione ends up slapping Draco. *gets out PoA* Well, let's see... Okay, the day of the Slap, the order of events are as follows: The Trio has CoMC class. Since the Black attack, they have to be escorted by teacher's wherever they go. So Hagrid is walking the Gryffindors and Slytherins from his hut to the Castle. As the way walk, Hagrid tells the Trio about Buckbeak's trial. He finally just can't talk about poor "Beaky" anymore and walks off, face in his hankerchief, towards his cabin. No, he didn't break down in front of the class, he went off to cry to himself and take care of Buckbeak after fullfilling his duty of walking the students safely to the castle(by the time he leaves, we're told Draco and Co. are already inside the Castle). ~Aldrea From emb021 at motorola.com Tue Jun 25 21:59:38 2002 From: emb021 at motorola.com (emb021) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:59:38 -0000 Subject: race [book differences?] / Dean Thomas-Tom Riddle In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40349 > rosie wrote: > Cho Chang's name suggests an > > Oriental background. And yet, I don't remember any passages stating > that > > "Harry had a crush on Cho, a pretty Asian girl." > "GulPlum" wrote > Strangely, another linguistic difference. :-) The immediate > interpretation of "Asian" in the UK would be Indian/Pakistani. > Chinese/Korean/Vietnamese (and that general area) = Oriental, > Japanese = Japanese. It's probably got something to do with our > colonial past. > In the US, some have taken exception to the term "Oriental", claiming its inappropriate to refer to people by that term. (its ok to speak of Oriental clothing, or furniture, or food, not people). I have to wonder if they don't understand the original of the term (and am sure they have never heard of its 'opposite' term of Occidental. :) ) Now the term "Asian" is used in its place. Those from Indian/Pakistan were never termed "Asian" for the most part here. Michael Brown From miss_dumblydore at yahoo.com Tue Jun 25 22:11:21 2002 From: miss_dumblydore at yahoo.com (Heather Gauen) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:11:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort a Gryffindor? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020625221121.72439.qmail@web20420.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40350 Hi everyone! *waves nervously and hopes her first post makes some degree of sense* Talia wrote: "I suppose people assume that the Dark Lord was in Slytherin because of what Ron said...Ron says something to the effect of 'There wasn't a witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin.'" I write: Hagrid is the one who actually says the quote, "There's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin," and then adds, "You-Know Who was one." (p 80, SS) Later, on the train, Ron is trashing on Slytherin and also says something to the effect of Slytherin turning out more dark wizards than any other, and he confirms what Hagrid said about Voldemort being in Slytherin. Talia wrote: "Did Ron not know anything about Sirius Black?" I write: I'm assuming that neither Hagrid nor Ron thought to add, "Oh, yeah, except for one Gryffindor who went REALLY bad," since both conversations were centered on why Harry didn't want to be in Slytherin. Ron probably knew about Black, since he knew about him in GoF, and Hagrid certainly knows about him-- it just didn't seem important to add at the time. Both Hagrid and Ron mentioning Voldemort being in Slytherin raises an interesting question. Ron doesn't know about Tom Riddle (most likely), so we do not know if his statement is assumption or something he knows for sure. But as for Hagrid-- does he know that Tom Riddle and Voldemort are one and the same? Riddle and Hagrid did go to school together, and Riddle was the one who got Hagrid expelled. Surely Hagrid, then, would know what house Riddle had been in. If he knows that Tom Riddle is Voldemort (and I think he does, given his connection to Dumbledore), then there you have it. Hagrid has no reason to lie about which house Voldemort was in (at least not one we know about yet). Heather, who hopes that the next book doesn't completely disprove her theory that Voldemort had to have been a Slytherin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From ambiradams at hotmail.com Tue Jun 25 22:25:00 2002 From: ambiradams at hotmail.com (Ambir Adams) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 15:25:00 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily's Family Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40351 >From: "hpfan04" >I'm not sure if this has been brought up before, but reading all the >posts on the Evans family started me thinking. > Some say that there are no references to Harry's parents and >grandparents, etc., so it might be possible that Voldemort was Lily's >father (I don't remember who said that, but I do like the theory). I >don't really have a perfect theory for that, more something like Mrs. >Evans had an affair with Voldie and here we have Lily. > But, what if Lily was related to Dumbledore? In CoS (US paperback >ed. page 245) it states that D had auburn hair. And it states in SS/PS >(US ed. page 208) that Lily also has dark red hair. Of course, this >could just be a coincidence. But what if? That would certainly explain >why D was close to and "good friends" (correct me if I'm wrong, but I >believe that's stated somewhere in one of the books) with James and >Lily Potter. I would go with the fact that Dumbledore could be Lily's father, not Voldemort, for one Dumbledore said in CoS that Voldemort was the last heir of Slytherin. So that rules Harry out, but it very well could be Dumbledore is related to Lily, which could also mean Harry is realted to the Weasleys (which I hope for ship reasons), I don't think if hair color is a thing to go on. But it is good to speculate ^_^ Ryoko Blue _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Jun 26 00:50:19 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:50:19 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Voldemort-Potter Connection/ Hermione lies/Q for Hagrid disapprovers/ HP Tarot/games References: Message-ID: <01d801c21cab$726b1180$38a0cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 40352 Draco382 says: > wow...so I guess this introduces a new Fatherly!Voldemort to the >discussion! This is a very interesting new theory. But I have one >question...does this mean that Lily is an orphan that was taken in >by Petunia and her folks? But that doesn't explain why Petunia >doesn't have any pictures of Harry's Family anywhere. I mean, they >would after all, be just a muggle family, right? Unless, Voldemort >killed them all systematically, after Lily joined the crew. Maybe >I'm just confused, but I'd love to hear more about this. Right, one would think Harry's family were ordinary muggles. Except for the comment that he had never seen pictures of his family. Any of his family. Not his mother--who was his aunt's sister, who he's lived with for ten years! Or apparently her parents either. I'm getting this from the passage at the mirror of Erised in Sorcerer's Stone Scholastic paperback edition page 209: And slowly, Harry looked into the faces of the other people in the mirror, and saw other pairs of green eyes like his, other noses like his, even a little old man who looked as though he had Harry's knobbly knees--Harry was looking at his family, for the first time in his life. Now one could assume he's seeing the Potter side, except for those green eyes, which as we all well know by now come from his mother. Kyli writes: >But, what if Lily was related to Dumbledore? In CoS (US paperback >ed. page 245) it states that D had auburn hair. And it states in SS/PS >(US ed. page 208) that Lily also has dark red hair. Of course, this >could just be a coincidence. But what if? That would certainly explain >why D was close to and "good friends" (correct me if I'm wrong, but I >believe that's stated somewhere in one of the books) with James and >Lily Potter. It is stated in Book one by Hagrid that " . . . the myst'ry is why You-Know-Who never tried to get 'em (James and Lily) on his side before . . . probably knew they were too close ter Dumbledore ter want anythin' to do with the Dark Side." (US paperback edtion SS/PS page 55) However, my theory also has Harry related to Dumbledore--but through James Potter, not Lily. Yes, I've got lots of theories. :) Ryoko Blue writes: > I would go with the fact that Dumbledore could be Lily's father, not > Voldemort, for one Dumbledore said in CoS that Voldemort was the last heir > of Slytherin. So that rules Harry out, but it very well could be Dumbledore > is related to Lily, which could also mean Harry is realted to the Weasleys > (which I hope for ship reasons), I don't think if hair color is a thing to > go on. But it is good to speculate ^_^ Well I'm still sticking to those green eyes coming from something to do with Slytherin. Dumbledore has blue eyes, right? Anyway, if Dumbledore didn't know Tom Riddle had a son, he would assume that Voldemort/Riddle was the last heir of Slytherin. But the way my figures come out Tom Riddle was somewhere between 40 and 45 when he "went bad." Can't tell me he didn't have a kid someplace in all that time! But by the end of GoF Dumbledore was suspecting there was something more than meets the eye there, thus the gleam in his eye after the blood incident (only assuming he wanted Harry's blood for foe/blood relation which I'll admit is a pretty wild assumption, but you never know). Dave writes: >In an unrelated topic, it's been bothering me for quite a while as to why Hermione lied to >Professor McGonagall about why she was in the bathroom in the troll incident in PS/SS. I read >a very old post here, in which someone said that she was saving Harry and Ron from getting in >trouble, since it was their fault that she was in there crying in the first place. I agree, that's true, >but do you think Harry and Ron would have been held responsible for that by the teachers >present? In the long run, isn't doing a bad thing and then making up for it by going out of their >way to save her life much more noble than than just sensing she was in trouble and going to >save her? The only way I can see as to why she took responsibility is because she's considered by the teachers and others to be more responsible and less likely to get into mischief. Harry and Ron (or at least Harry--can't quite remember) had already lots points for Gryffindor and maybe she didn't want everyone mad at them, so she thought she'd lose some points herself. Zoe writes: >I have a question that I'd like to put those of you who disapprove of >Hagrid. It's clear to me, a self-confessed Hagrid lover, that JKR loves >Hagrid and clearly meant for him to be a sympathetic character and one of >the good guys. Do you believe that she believes Hagrid to be a dismal >failure whose character flaws are so great that he is destined to cause >Harry and/or Dumbledore great harm? Or do you believe that JKR meant to >write a good guy, but failed miserably? Well, I don't disapprove of Hagrid, but I'll share my theory anyway (since as I said before I have many theories). I think that JKR is writing him to be a loveable (at least by children) character whose bumbling mistakes often get him into trouble. But who is loyal to Dumbledore and may make life threatening mistakes but will risk (possibly sacrifice) his life to correct them/defend Dumbledore/Harry. Eric writes: >I have a friend who is a serious Tarot-card collector. I asked her if there >was any such thing as a Harry Potter Tarot, since she would know. (She >deals in tarot decks to other collectors, among other things.) She said >that such a thing had been brought up to JKRowling's people by the biggest Hmm, that's interesting. Anybody know if a Harry Potter monopoly is planned? I collect Monopoly games (well, I collect almost everything). Now if you have manged to read to the end of this, congratulations. I think I've got the combining post thing down pat. :) Richelle From meboriqua at aol.com Wed Jun 26 00:48:46 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 00:48:46 -0000 Subject: Question for Hagrid Disapprovers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40353 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Suzanne Chiles" wrote: >Do you believe that she (JKR) believes Hagrid to be a dismal failure whose character flaws are so great that he is destined to cause Harry and/or Dumbledore great harm? Or do you believe that JKR meant to write a good guy, but failed miserably?> Neither, actually. I think JKR has a lesson behind almost all of her characters, but I don't think she intended Hagrid's sole purpose to be someone who would cause Dumbledore great harm. Most of her characters have layers of depth, Hagrid included. I think through Hagrid we are supposed to understand the idea of being tolerant and open minded, and, along with Lupin, we are supposed to turn away from stereotyping and give people second chances. I do believe that Hagrid is a good guy, but I do not like him. I find him a bit cartoonish. That does not mean that I think JKR failed miserably; it just means I don't like him. There are members here who openly dislike Ron, something probably a surprise to JKR, and I'm willing to bet JKR never expected so many people to find Snape sexy. As for Hagrid, I personally just do not find his obsession with big and hairy beasts amusing, and I am unclear about what kind of relationship Harry and co. are supposed to have with Hagrid. He is someone who was hired to be an authority figure on the Hogwarts grounds, yet I get the feeling we *should* want him to be friends with Harry, something I am not comfortable with. These are tough questions, Suzanne! I am not sure how well I answered them. --jenny from ravenclaw ****************************** From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Jun 26 00:55:13 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 00:55:13 -0000 Subject: More in Defense of Hagrid Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40354 Jenny: >>I'm sorry, but he is not supposed to be Harry's friend. I am there for my students and I've listened to many a sob story, have given advice and have laughed with my students many times. They even know a bit about my life - but I DO NOT cry to them or expect them to help me if I make a mistake. I don't tell them when I am having problems at home and I don't expect them to pick me up when I am down. In fact, they never know if I am dealing with somethig outside of school because I keep that to myself. I don't care what position Hagrid has at Hogwarts; he should not EVER have Harry and Co. helping him out and sneaking around in the middle of the night when he messes up. Hagrid needs to learn how to take better care of himself.<< Considering that Hogwarts is the only wizarding school for the UK, all the staff who aren't from all-Muggle families are likely to have relatives among the student body, perhaps even children and grandchildren. It doesn't surprise me that Hogwarts would have a more relaxed attitude toward mixing personal and professional relationships. The wizarding world as a whole is so close-knit and clubby that such things probably aren't considered unusual. There's no hint that anyone thinks it's wrong for Lavender and Parvati to lunch with Professor Trelawney every day. JKR isn't blind to the fact that such dual role relationships can cause problems and I'm sure Dumbledore isn't either. We see hints of it with Snape and Karkaroff. However, Muggle-borns who enter the wizarding world are cut off from their natural families by their diverging experiences, even if, unlike Harry, they had solid relationships to begin with. Dumbledore may feel the risks of emotional isolation, especially for Harry, are worse than whatever problems he might run into as a result of being entangled in Hagrid's affairs. And I think Hagrid learned his lesson after Norbert and Aragog--he never again takes advantage of the Trio's willingness to break rules on his behalf, and chides them when he finds they have done so. Hagrid's emotions are outsize, like his body. Unlike Madame Maxime, he hasn't mastered the social and physical graces he needs to be unobtrusive among the normal sized population. The problems he has blending into the wizarding world aren't any different than the ones Harry had at his elementary school. Think of all the times Harry did things that alarmed his Muggle teachers when he was upset or scared. Yes, Hagrid drinks too much on occasion...this *is* a story set in Scotland. It would be absurd to pretend that hard drinking isn't part of the traditional culture. The damage caused by Hagrid's drinking isn't white-washed. Hagrid knows he's to blame for letting Fluffy's secret out. This is another case where he's learned a lesson. Rita Skeeter doesn't get anything damaging out of him in the Pub. She learned about his parentage from eavesdropping at the Yule ball. Harry sees her there in beetle form, though of course he doesn't know it's her. Rita probably got Fridwulfa's name from digging into old records, just as Fudge accused Harry of doing. I can't see Hagrid telling her that out of the blue, and she couldn't have risked asking him without revealing what she already knew. All Rita's able to do with the information she got from Hagrid in the Pub is insinuate that there must be something illegal about the skrewts, because Hagrid refuses to tell her if he had permission to breed them. Considering that they are one of the hazards in the Maze, he probably did have permission, just as the Ministry gave permission to import the dragons for the first task. Of course he was forbidden to tell her that, since the purpose was to have the contestants confront an unfamiliar creature. (Hagrid's fourth year class could raise the skrewts since they were supposedly too young to be contestants.) So Hagrid *was* being discrete, and Rita made him look bad for it. She'd have done the same if he'd refused to talk to her at all. I would also like to say a few words in defense of the much-maligned flobberworms. Flobberworms seem to have been the standard curriculum as recommended by the Board of Governors, which makes some sense to me. The students need to master basic animal husbandry before going on to interestin' creatures, and they also need to learn that, yes, taking care of animals can be dull and repititious. You can't stop taking care of an animal that's depending on you to feed it just because it got boring. Has anybody ever thought that the reason Ron picked Care of Magical Creatures as an elective was that it had a reputation for being less challenging? Dumbledore, or JKR, may be making a point about taking what we used to call a "pipe" course. This also could shed some light on why McGonagall let Hermione experiment with her impossible schedule. If she had been limited to two electives, she might have chosen Divination and CoMC in order to be with her friends, and missed out on discovering Arithmancy, her favorite subject, altogether. Pippin From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com Wed Jun 26 01:07:36 2002 From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:07:36 -0400 Subject: Harry's Scar / Weasleys and Money Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40355 I don't know if this has been discussed before but I was reading a book on runes and noticed something interesting. Harry's scar, shaped like a lightening bolt, is the same shape as the rune Sigel. So what? you're thinking, but there are some very interesting meanings to this rune. 1) it is well known as a victory symbol 2) it can be used as a force of attack 3) it is a positive force because it is the natural power of the sun 4) Spiritually it symbolizes clear vision, the victories of light over darkness/good over evil 5) it's true nature is to use the powers of good to vanquish evil. Interesting isn't it? Can't say Harry Potter much better than that. (rune meanings taken from "The Predictions Library: Runes" by David V. Barrett) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My second and completely unrelated comment is about the Weasleys and their spending habits. Has anyone ever noticed that they don't really have their priorities straight when it comes to money? Thier kids all have hand-me-down robes, wands, and pets but when, in POA, they won seven hundred galleons they spent most of on a trip to Egypt. Sure, the family was thrilled to go on the vacation, and they got to see Bill, and Ron did get a new wand but surely they could have done something better all that money such as buying new robes, clothing, supplies, and brooms for their kids so that Ginny and Ron at least didn't feel embarrassed and inferior to everyone at school? I don't know how the twins or Percy feel about their used clothing, though theirs might be newer and therefore less of a problem, but I'm pretty sure that the twins would like new brooms since they were upset in CoS that theirs were so much more inferior to the Slytherin ones. In CoS Ginny poured out her feelings to the diary about how much she hated not having new things and Ron is always upset about his robes etc. So instead of buying things like this, or putting the money in the bank, they blow it all at once. Maybe I'm just more practical, but what were they thinking? Oh, and why do they need to keep buying new books each year when some of them are pretty standard from year to year -- Shouldn't Percy and one of the twins be the only ones who need new books? When Lockhart or someone changes the titles I can see buying new books but the standard book of spell etc is, well, standard. Just a couple of things I thought people might find interesting. --- --Hana ____________________________________________________________ Win a first-class trip to New Orleans and vacation Elvis Style!. Enter NOW! http://r.lycos.com/r/sagel_mail/http://www.elvis.lycos.com/sweepstakes/ From meboriqua at aol.com Wed Jun 26 01:11:39 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 01:11:39 -0000 Subject: Defense of Hagrid, Hagrid's Teaching, Flobberworms, etc.(long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40356 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "aldrea279" wrote: > Why, though? Why is it a bad thing for Hagrid to relate some of his > problems to the open ears of his friends?> It is inappropriate. Would you have wanted to hear your teachers tell you about their personal problems? If you were a teacher, would you have accepted the help of your students when you knew they should have been doing their homework - or when you should have been taking care of things yourself? Why couldn't Hagrid have gone to the library to research hippogriff trials? Whether Harry and friends went to Hagrid or not, he shouldn't have told them as much as he did - Harry, Hermione and Ron were only 13 at the time! One of my colleagues is constantly telling the students how tired he is and how he didn't get enough sleep this night or that, how sick he feels, blah blah blah. *I* don't even want to hear it. It's unprofessional and inappropriate. > Oh, come one. If Hagrid had layed a finger on Draco, Hagrid-Haters everywhere would be outraged that a teacher would do so to a student- no matter how much Draco deserved it. No, I must say Karkaroff deserved it, but Hagrid was dealing with a full-fledged, Death-Eating wizard; slamming a child, one as panicky(I really can't believe Draco, who is supposed to be a cunning Slytherin, decides that he is dead when lolling around on the floor after Buckbeak clawed him) and spoiled as Draco around is not the right thing, nor a Hagrid thing to do.> I never said Hagrid should have put his hands on Draco and I never said that Karkaroff deserved to get slammed up against a tree. What I meant, though, is that Hagrid could have been much stricter with Draco and certainly could have made a good case (with all of his Gryffindor students to back him as witnesses, I'm sure) against Draco's behavior. Draco has been punished before - in SS and in PoA. He is not above punishment. There is a point in GoF where Hagrid puts Draco in his place and it works very well. I think it's a shame that Hagrid can't think on his feet more often, something teachers generally have to learn to be good at. Hagrid as a teacher is just something that I don't approve of. In reality (and I know HP isn't reality - most of the time, anyway), Hagrid would have received all sorts of professional support and training right after the Buckbeak incident, but by the end of the year when the students had done nothing but fed Flobberworms for nine months, he would have been removed or transferred. Whether or not it was suggested to him to start with Flobberworms, he should have had the common sense to know to move on to other things after a few days - maybe a week at the most. Hagrid, however, does *not* have the common sense I think one needs to be a teacher at Hogwarts. I have to admit it: in a small way I understand why Draco didn't want Hagrid as a teacher. I wouldn't want him either. I'll take Snape any day. --jenny from ravenclaw ****** From nplyon at yahoo.com Tue Jun 25 23:49:30 2002 From: nplyon at yahoo.com (nplyon) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 23:49:30 -0000 Subject: TBAY: HP and the Superfluous Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40357 >A description of Harry's anxiety > before a Quidditch match may not "enhance or establish plot twists or > significant events" and may not be "entertaining or clever in and of > themselves", but they *may* add density, thickness, depth, to the > reader's sense of Harry the person - and that is (IMO) a necessary > condition for the reader's involvement in the story. > > > Naama I completely agree. One of my favorite things about the Harry Potter novels are the rich world that JKR creates for the reader. I personally enjoy reading novels that are heavy in description because I like to have total immersion in the world that is being created by the novelist. Again, this is one of my favorite things about JKR's writing. I too enjoy the Portkey chapter and, since the Portkey as object becomes so important later in the novel, I think that this chapter is important to the story. Sure, JKR could have just had Arthur Weasley say, "By the way, we're going to catch the early Portkey to the QWC--a Portkey is an ordinary-looking objects that Muggles wouldn't touch but that allows a wizard to transport himself from one place to another." What fun is that? I enjoyed the image of everyone straining to hold onto the Portkey with a finger, enjoyed the description of Harry feeling as though a hook behind his navel is grabbing him and dragging him forward. I really think all this boils down to a matter of taste. There are some who just want to get to the nitty gritty of a story, like my husband, who frequently skims rather than reads a book. And then there are some who enjoy vivid and even lengthy descriptions of scenes and events because it allows them to totally immerse themselves in the world described by the book. I am definitely one of the latter. While I enjoy and am intrigued by the overall plot and mythology of the series, I agree with Naama in that I often enjoy the more leisurely chapters than the action-packed ones. ~Nicole who is an avid Jane Austen fan partially because of her very descriptive writing. From bard7696 at aol.com Wed Jun 26 01:27:35 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 01:27:35 -0000 Subject: Defense of Hagrid, Hagrid's Teaching, Flobberworms, etc.(long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40358 Jenny wrote: > > It is inappropriate. Would you have wanted to hear your teachers tell > you about their personal problems? If you were a teacher, would you > have accepted the help of your students when you knew they should have > been doing their homework - or when you should have been taking care > of things yourself? Why couldn't Hagrid have gone to the library to > research hippogriff trials? Whether Harry and friends went to Hagrid > or not, he shouldn't have told them as much as he did - Harry, > Hermione and Ron were only 13 at the time! > > One of my colleagues is constantly telling the students how tired he > is and how he didn't get enough sleep this night or that, how sick he > feels, blah blah blah. *I* don't even want to hear it. It's > unprofessional and inappropriate. > As unprofessional as: * Continually favoring your House over another house? Snape * Threatening to kill one's pet if the assignment isn't done correctly? Snape * Manipulating the rules so your House team wins at the school sport? McGonagall * Purchasing the top-of-the-line broom for one player? McGonagall * Lunching constantly with two students? Trelawney * Insulting a 14-year-old girl with large teeth in front of her peers? Snape. * Refusing to help same girl when she has obviously been cursed? Snape * Turning a student into a ferret? Moody * Undercutting another faculty member by assigning homework with the intended result of outing that faculty member as a member of a group targeted for bigotry? Snape * Further undercutting that faculty member by flat-out revealing that secret? Hagrid's crimes are: * Actually assuming his students were mature enough to listen to his lessons instead of doing the exact opposite -- the ONE THING that sets off a Hippogriff. * Taking his board of education's advice and stays with a tamer lesson. * Accepting assistance OFFERED by students in a case where his pet is to be put to sleep. * Drinking during his OFF HOURS. Quits drinking for the evening as soon as a student chastises him about it. * Being friends with three students who he knew prior to being a teacher -- and he's known Harry really since he was a baby -- even though there is no evidence that these three get any extra breaks in class. * Speaking with a reporter in good faith and refusing to speak bad about a student, even though that is obviously what the reporter wants. By the standard you've set, there are lots of teachers who should be canned. Oh, and I cover education issues for a newspaper. Most states have at least a two-year probationary period. Given that we've seen rapid improvement from Hagrid in just 18 months, maybe he's going to be OK. > > I never said Hagrid should have put his hands on Draco and I never > said that Karkaroff deserved to get slammed up against a tree. What I > meant, though, is that Hagrid could have been much stricter with Draco > and certainly could have made a good case (with all of his Gryffindor > students to back him as witnesses, I'm sure) against Draco's behavior. Punish a student who has just been the victim of a classroom accident? Well, perhaps he should at least take him to the infirmary first. Darrin -- Thinks all the Snape supporters should have to be in his class for one hour while wearing a Gryffindor robe. From bard7696 at aol.com Wed Jun 26 01:33:00 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 01:33:00 -0000 Subject: Harry's Scar / Weasleys and Money In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40359 Hana: > My second and completely unrelated comment is about the Weasleys and their spending habits. > > Has anyone ever noticed that they don't really have their priorities straight when it comes to money? Thier kids all have hand- me-down robes, wands, and pets but when, in POA, they won seven hundred galleons they spent most of on a trip to Egypt. Sure, the family was thrilled to go on the vacation, and they got to see Bill, and Ron did get a new wand but surely they could have done something better all that money such as buying new robes, clothing, supplies, and brooms for their kids so that Ginny and Ron at least didn't feel embarrassed and inferior to everyone at school? > > I don't know how the twins or Percy feel about their used clothing, though theirs might be newer and therefore less of a problem, but I'm pretty sure that the twins would like new brooms since they were upset in CoS that theirs were so much more inferior to the Slytherin ones. In CoS Ginny poured out her feelings to the diary about how much she hated not having new things and Ron is always upset about his robes etc. So instead of buying things like this, or putting the money in the bank, they blow it all at once. > > Maybe I'm just more practical, but what were they thinking? > > Oh, and why do they need to keep buying new books each year when some of them are pretty standard from year to year -- Shouldn't Percy and one of the twins be the only ones who need new books? When Lockhart or someone changes the titles I can see buying new books but the standard book of spell etc is, well, standard. > > Just a couple of things I thought people might find interesting. > > Oh, I don't know. I'm of the mindset that gambling money, minor lottery winnings, etc.. is "found" money and should be largely spent on something entertaining. Besides, the Weasleys probably haven't been on a family vacation in years. And they probably haven't seen Bill in quite some time. With the kids the age they are, a new robe is just going to be too short in a few years anyway, but a trip to Egypt will have memories that last a lot longer. And how much do you really need a broomstick out of school? None of the Weasleys are good enough to make a career out of Quidditch. As for the books? Well, there is some passing down of books allowed, I would imagine, but I would also think some lessons will be needed constantly. A fourth-year might need to keep the third- or even second-year spellbooks around for reference, for instance. Darrin -- I win 700 galleons, I'm going to Vegas From dicentra at xmission.com Wed Jun 26 01:39:49 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 01:39:49 -0000 Subject: TBAY: HP and the Superfluous Scene In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40360 Dicentra is confused by this new phenomenon. There are these... words... writing themselves in the sky, right before her eyes. She can't see who wrote them, only that the person is named Naama. And it's *another* one of those wearysome defenses of the Portkey chapter. Dicentra looks over to the Big Bang to see if Cindy is available for help, but she can't see her. Undoubtedly, she's below deck, kicking the Snapetheories into submission or something, so Dicey turns her attention back to the writing as this paragraph appears: > A rather different aspect of this is the need for a certain > thickness of description in a novel (bastardizing Clifford Geertz > here). It seems to me, Cindy, that if JKR were to follow your project > of leaving only the parts that are informative and important plot > wise, we would be left with an abstract of a novel - not the novel > itself. Oh wait, Dicentra thinks. That's not what Cindy would propose. No no no no. Not for a minute. Dicentra pauses. Her thoughts are appearing as words in the sky, too. Yikes! Get out of my head! She tries to erase the words by waving her hands through them, but they remain unperturbed. *Sigh* Well, if that's how it is... Dicentra continues: I'm fairly sure Cindy wouldn't ask that a single syllable be removed from the Shrieking Shack scene, for example. It's very dense writing, but it's hardly an abstract. (OK, it's a lot of exposition of past actions that we would all rather see in real time, if for no other reason than to resolve some nagging issues, but that's not the point.) The point is that when Cindy reads the Portkey chapter, she's left with the sensation of not having gone anywhere. She doesn't go back to read it just for fun. She wants those 20 minutes back. It would appear that many other readers, such as yourself, Naama, and Pippin and Debbie and Rosie and Rowen and who knows who else do not have that sensation. That's why we have the "Tortam Comere Tanto Habere" spell. It acknowledges that what strikes one reader as irrelevant might not strike others the same way. I get to keep my can(n)ons on board GARBAGE SCOW, and Pippin gets to make off with them at the same time. Then the words that Naama was writing just go on as if Dicentra's words hadn't even been written yet. Sheez! > For instance, in order for us to become interested in Harry's special > destiny, green eyes and scar, we need, in the first place, to care > about Harry. For that, we need to *know* him (in the sense of get to > know), get a sense of who he is. Would we feel for him if the > books told us only those thoughts and feelings that he has that are > crucial to the plot? I doubt it. A description of Harry's anxiety > before a Quidditch match may not "enhance or establish plot twists or > significant events" and may not be "entertaining or clever in and of > themselves", but they *may* add density, thickness, depth, to the > reader's sense of Harry the person - and that is (IMO) a necessary > condition for the reader's involvement in the story. If, in Harry Awakens at 4:30am, Harry were sitting there in the common room, fretting his guts out before the match, I'd agree with you. But no mention is made of Harry's emotional state. His fingers don't grip the broomstick tightly, he stomach doesn't tie itself in knots, he doesn't look out the window and wonder how the heck he's going to play in that weather, he doesn't even go over Quidditch strategy in his head. We're only told that he whiles away the hours until dawn, occasionally stopping Crookshanks from entering the boys' dormitory (whose door is shut anyway, isn't it? FLINT!). When I finished reading that scene, I was left with the sensation that absolutely NOTHING had happened. Nothing "enhanced or established plot twists or significant events," nothing was "entertaining or clever in and of itself," nothing "added density, thickness, or depth, to the reader's sense of Harry the person." And that's *highly* unusual for a scene in the HP series. That's why I got me this boat and hoisted some can(n)ons aboard. All the other watercraft rely on density of meaning; this one collects those scenes that don't get used for theories, speculations, and other TBAY hijinks. The useless scenes need love too! --Dicentra, who realizes that the can(n)ons aboard GARBAGE SCOW are highly subjective, but show me a can(n)on that isn't! From porphyria at mindspring.com Wed Jun 26 02:02:51 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria_ash) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 02:02:51 -0000 Subject: Confundus; Hermione's lying; Tarot Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40361 Alexander asked: > I have re-read PoA, and now a question appeared: in the > Shrieking Shack, Lupin tells the story of the Marauders to > HRH and invisible Snape. He also mentions that three of > Marauders were animagi. Snape hears the whole story. > > Yet in the GoF, ministry seems to be unaware of the fact > that Sirius is an animagus. Surely Snape would squeal on > Sirius if he was given a chance? If he didn't, then why? My interpretation of this, Magic Dishwashers aside, is that Snape honesty thought he was witnessing a Confundus-in-progress in the Shack and he figured the entire animagus account was a cock-and-bull story. He doesn't believe that Sirius is a large animal any more than he believes Peter is a rat. If Dumbledore later convinced him that this was all true then he would have also convinced him that Sirius was innocent, so once Snape believed everything he wouldn't have chosen to mention it to the Ministry. Snape is bad, but not that bad; I don't think he'd inform on an innocent man no matter how much he personally hated him. However, given Snape's evident surprise at Sirius' presence at the end of GoF, perhaps he was never made to believe the animagus account and didn't accept it until that moment. We haven't actually seen someone cast a Confundus charm. It's possible that it requires a *fake* story to take the place of the real one, like a smokescreen. When Crouch Jr. disguised as Moody brags about how the Goblet of Fire must have been confunded he says: "It would have needed an exceptionally strong Confundus Charm to bamboozle that goblet into forgetting that only three schools compete in the tournament...I'm guessing they submitted Potter's name under a fourth school, to make sure he was the only one in his category." I take this to mean that the Goblet wasn't just coaxed into forgetting how many schools there were, but was told that the number of schools was actually four. Well, I guess you can interpret it either way, but I don't think it rules out that one way to do a Confundus charms is to tell a false story to replace the true one. If so, this would jive with what Snape belived he witnessed in the Shack. ----- Dave Haber asked: > In an unrelated topic, it's been bothering me for quite a > while as to why Hermione lied to Professor McGonagall about > why she was in the bathroom in the troll incident in PS/SS. > I read a very old post here, in which someone said that she > was saving Harry and Ron from getting in trouble, since it > was their fault that she was in there crying in the first > place. This bothers me too, I think the exact way she goes about lying to McGonagall is FLINTY. It would have made just as much sense if she told the truth and just said that she'd been hiding in there crying her eyes out. She wouldn't have had to mention why. My best guess is that she was simply trying to draw McGonagall's fire upon herself. In other words, McGonagall was about to get *really* angry and she was fixin' to punish someone, so by "admitting" that she was out to kill the troll herself, Hermione made herself sound as guilty and foolish as possible and made the boys look relatively heroic in comparison, thus distracting McGonagall from punishing them. Of course the overall answer is that she is grateful for them for saving her life and she wants them to see how much she really admires them and wants to be their friend. By deliberately sacrificing herself she gets the point across that she values them more than she values her good reputation with the teachers. This would be the second case of a woman drawing fire upon herself to protect Harry. ----- Eric wrote: > I can think of a lot of things that would go well in a > HP Tarot, though...let me see...Major Arcana... > Harry Potter (natch!) as the Magician > Hagrid as the Hermit > Voldemort as Death > Cedric and Cho (or Arthur and Molly Weasley, or Harry's > parents) as the Lovers > James Potter as Strength > MoM Cornelius Fudge as the Hierophant > Professor McGonagall as the Empress > Dumbledore as the Emperor As to tarot, I know there is already at least one attempt online: http://www.qaimlyn.com/padfootmk/tarot.htm I think this deck does an excellent job with the symbols. The Empress is really a card symbolizing maternal plenty; I think Molly is a better choice than the stern McGonagall. The Lovers represents duality, not perfect accord; thus Hermione and Ron are perfect since they really do squabble all the time (shipping arguments aside). Snape, of course, would be the Death card, which represents transformation. Harry is the Fool, since he's the one who's making the monumental journey. And Lily is Strength (sniff!). But yes, there would be lots of ways to interpret an HP Tarot. ~Porphyria From fluxed at earthlink.net Wed Jun 26 02:17:03 2002 From: fluxed at earthlink.net (A. Vulgarweed) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:17:03 -0500 Subject: Ethnicity, Location, Tarot In-Reply-To: <1025041191.4715.14511.m3@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40362 Nik wrote: >I grew up/live in rural Indiana = *very* white. I assumed that the Patils >didn't have English names, but I wasn't immediately aware if they were taken >>from a particular ethnic group or if they were just interesting names that >JKR had come up with. > Depends on where you are in the US (and I guess, how much reading you do and stuff): I grew up in a really white rural area too but I live in a big city with a lot of immigrant communities now, and between the name "Patil" (which is common here, though often spelled "Patel") and the Hindu-goddess names, that's all the information I needed to know that Padma & Parvati are Indian. I also didn't need anything but her name to know that Cho Chang is Asian/Oriental. Dean Thomas and Angelina Johnson, though, I *would* need to be told they were black if that was important to the story, because their names don't convey that information (Johnson is a very common name among both whites and blacks here). I mean, Hannah Abbot or Susan Bones or Morag McDougal or Malcolm Baddock or whoever could be black also for all I know--I don't think it says anywhere that they're _not_. So in a way the reader is free to imagine Hogwarts as pasty-white or as diverse as they wish: we're not given much information on _everybody's_ ethnicity, and plenty of minor characters get no physical description at all. But I have noticed that I have >different assumptions on some of the details. For example - the location of >Hogwarts. Is it generally accepted that the school is located in Scotland, >or is that just a proposed theory? I'll admit that it never even occurred to >me that the school could be located anywhere other than England. Of course, >that could also have to do with the fact that I can never keep straight the >differences between England/UK/Britain/British Isles etc. The descriptions of the surroundings fit Scotland very well (and my reading was influenced by knowing JKR lives in Edinburgh), but more to the point it would pretty much have to be in Scotland, for the reasons mentioned about the time it takes the Hogwarts Express to get there...to people used to the vast North American continent, Great Britain is a really small landmass. Scotland is about the northern third of the island. There's no way you can be on a train that long from London and still be in England, unless the train is really really really slow. ANYWAY, from what I know as a Yank (who has been to Scotland and Ireland, but not England) it goes like this: Great Britain is the big island, and Scotland, England, and Wales are all parts of it. The United Kingdom is a *political* entity that includes England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland--but NOT the Republic of Ireland, which is the island of Ireland minus six counties in the north. The British Isles is a *geographical* entity for this cluster of islands separated from the European landmass, which _does_ include all of Ireland, as well as of course all the little islands like the Orkneys, Shetlands, Hebrides, etc. (which are part of Scotland and, hence, the UK). Sounds more complicated than it is: looking at a map makes it easier. > and Pam writes: > When I replied that I didn't think >there were any Americans at Hogwarts, African or otherwise, but there >may well be some black students as well as students of Asian or >Oriental descent, the original poster had the temerity to suggest >that the correct term for a black person - even in Britain - was >African American! I would love to hear what a black person from the UK would have to say about *that*. (I do know that it doesn't go over very well in Canada.) Geez, you'd think someone who was all sensitive to this mult-culti stuff would know that Americans' careless and sloppy cultural imperialism is a big drag as far as the whole rest of the world is concerned. and Eric wrote: >I have a friend who is a serious Tarot-card collector. I asked her if there >was any such thing as a Harry Potter Tarot, since she would know. (She >deals in tarot decks to other collectors, among other things.) She said >that such a thing had been brought up to JKRowling's people by the biggest >Tarot-publisher, and it turned out that there were so many conditions >attached to it that the Tarot people basically backed out of it. > >I can think of a lot of things that would go well in a HP Tarot, >though...let me see...Major Arcana... > >Harry Potter (natch!) as the Magician >Hagrid as the Hermit >Voldemort as Death >Cedric and Cho (or Arthur and Molly Weasley, or Harry's parents) as the >Lovers >James Potter as Strength >MoM Cornelius Fudge as the Hierophant >Professor McGonagall as the Empress >Dumbledore as the Emperor > >and so on, and so on... > There IS an unofficial one on the Web....do not, alas have the URL, but I remember a domain name involving "padfoot.uk" so you might try to Google it. If anyone knows how to find it easily, please speak up! I have major quibbles with some of the attributions, and IMO it really falls apart in the Minor Arcana. (I don't agree with their version of the Houses/Suits correspondences, I think the elementals are all off). On the plus side the artwork is by a fanartist named Laura who has a lovely, distinctive, expressive style, and I think some of the Major Arcana attributions are inspired. HEre's what I remember: The Fool (innocence, beginning of journey, the protagonist): Harry Potter The Magician (power, mastery): Mad-Eye Moody. The Emperor (worldly power, fatherhood, benevolent ruler): Percy Weasley (I disagree. I say Arthur, and Molly of course as the Empress) The High Priestess: I think this was Fawkes, who I believe is male, but this card does represent inner knowledge and rebirth so it's not entirely off-base. I'd ask for a drawing of J.K. Rowling here, meself. The Hierophant (keeping of tradition): the Malfoy family. The Lovers (alchemical union, reconciliation of opposites): Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger The Chariot (forward motion, action): Harry again, catching Snitch. The Hermit: Hagrid Strength: Lily Potter (shown holding baby Harry with a terrible green light all around her) The Hanged Man (sacrifice for the greater good, possibly undeserved punishment): Sirius Black Death (transformation, turning point, hard choices): Severus Snape The Devil (greed, blindness, enslavement to the material): Lord Voldemort (shown w/rat Wormtail at his feet) Justice: Minerva McGonagall (showing sternly breaking up a hex-match between Harry and Draco) The Moon (Changeability, illusion, the wild self): Remus Lupin of course! The Star (Hope): Albus Dumbledore (shown looking especially twinkly) Temperance (balance): Fred and George Weasley, of all people! May be a bit OT, but I think if we can analyze through a Jungian lens, study of this particular quite useful set of archetypes makes sense as well. (full disclosure: I was a professional Tarot reader briefly, still use 'em a lot in meditation and writing--they work beautifully as a pattern for working with the unconscious mind.) AV From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 26 02:32:54 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 02:32:54 -0000 Subject: Defense of Hagrid, Hagrid's Teaching, Flobberworms, etc.(long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40363 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > Jenny wrote: > > One of my colleagues is constantly telling the students how tired > he > > is and how he didn't get enough sleep this night or that, how sick > he > > feels, blah blah blah. *I* don't even want to hear it. It's > > unprofessional and inappropriate. > > > > > As unprofessional as: > > * Continually favoring your House over another house? Snape > * Threatening to kill one's pet if the assignment isn't done > correctly? Snape > * Manipulating the rules so your House team wins at the school sport? > McGonagall > * Purchasing the top-of-the-line broom for one player? McGonagall > * Lunching constantly with two students? Trelawney > * Insulting a 14-year-old girl with large teeth in front of her > peers? Snape. > * Refusing to help same girl when she has obviously been cursed? Snape > * Turning a student into a ferret? Moody > * Undercutting another faculty member by assigning homework with the > intended result of outing that faculty member as a member of a group > targeted for bigotry? Snape > * Further undercutting that faculty member by flat-out revealing that > secret? To which list, I would also add Snape using one of Rita Skeeter's slanderous articles to humiliate Harry in class, and Trelawney making bogus predictions of death to frighten students. Hagrid, for all his flaws, is far from being the most unprofessional teacher at the school. And Hagrid, at least, is genuinely trying his best and improves with experience, which is more than can be said for either Snape or Trelawney. With Trelawney one could at least claim that she's a crank who genuinely believes her own blather. But Snape knows exactly what he's doing; his classroom misconduct is deliberate, and unlikely to ever get any better. I love Snape and am fairly indifferent to Hagrid, but if they were both teaching at a school *I* was in charge of, I know which one I'd can first. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From skelkins at attbi.com Wed Jun 26 03:01:47 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 03:01:47 -0000 Subject: Finding Voldemort -- Barty's "loyalty" (WAS: minor flaws?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40364 Aesha (Welcome!) was bothered by a number of GoF's more troublesome plot points. She wrote: > Firstly, and not as annoying, is the fact that Wormtail escaped > from the gang at the end of the term in PoA. Wormtail, who has been > a rat for 12 years, escapes and in less than 3 months makes his way > to Albania, runs into our friend Bertha, finds his master (who he's > had no contact with), they kill Bertha, hatch this elaborate > scheme, find Barty Jr., and get to the Riddle house. Wow. Wow, indeed. ;-) Yes, it does seem fast work, doesn't it? And for Wormtail to have happened to run into Bertha Jorkins in Albania, of all places, certainly was quite a fortuitous coincidence. Well. Not really fortuitous for *her,* I suppose. But you know what I mean. I have always believed that, no matter what Sirius implies in the Shrieking Shack, Pettigrew would never have returned to Voldemort had his masquerade not been uncovered in PoA. He returns only because he believes that he is now a hunted rat, and that Voldemort's protection is therefore likely his only chance for survival or safety. So I'm not unduly bothered by the fact that after twelve years of passivity, Pettigrew was able to find Voldemort after only three months of searching. I suspect that he could have done it years before, if he had ever been given any real incentive to make the effort. But how did he manage to find Voldemort so quickly? David touched on this issue a few days ago, when he wrote (in regard to the Spying Game Theory's claim that a number of the DEs really are loyal to Voldemort): > Voldemort really is unable to contact the DEs and they are unable > to find him. In that case we have to explain how Pettigrew could > succeed where others had failed. Well, I think those Death Eaters are a bunch of disloyal worms, myself, but I can see that Pettigrew does have two great advantages over all of the rest of them when it comes to finding Voldemort: 1) As Scabbers, he has been privy to Harry and Ron's private conversations for the past three years. He has also had the freedom to roam Hogwarts unnoticed for even longer, as he was there as Percy's pet before he was passed down to Ron. He has therefore had ample opportunity to learn that Dumbledore knew Albania to be Voldemort's hiding place. 2) He can both speak with rats and assume rat form. He is therefore privy to the rumor mill of the rodent population in a way that no other wizard ever could be. I have always assumed that Pettigrew knew where Voldemort was likely to be found from having overheard either Ron and Harry or one of the professors discussing the fact that Vapour!Voldemort was hovering about somewhere in Albania. This is admittedly pure speculation, but I don't think it an unreasonable assumption. The timeline alone suggests to my mind that after his escape at the end of PoA, Pettigrew likely headed straight for Albania. Once in Albania, he would have had a far better chance of finding Voldemort than any of the other DEs for the simple reason that he was privy to the local verminous rumour mill. In the graveyard, Voldemort reports that while in his vapor form, he could only possess small animals. He also states that Pettigrew found him by following the fearful rumors of other rats. Even if someone (an Auror, a loyal DE, whoever) *had* known to look for Voldemort in Albania, it is most unlikely that that person would have thought to interview the local rodent population. Only somebody travelling in rat form would be likely to gain access to that information. Aesha wrote: > I'm not a big fan of CoS anyway, but it seems maybe she should have > had a story like that for a year before the Tournament- that way > there's a year to find Voldemort, Bertha and BartyJ, figure out > this plan in such precision that it flows perfectly for almost 9 > months, even under the eye of (presumably) one of Mad-Eye's closest > friends... I agree with you that the plot would have seemed more plausible that way. Structurally, however, it makes sense for the plot events of Book Four to take place at the midpoint of the series. They constitute a turning point both in terms of the overarching plot and in terms of Harry's development. They therefore belong in the middle; for them to have happened in the fifth book of a seven-book series wouldn't have had at all the same effect, IMO. Aesha: > Secondly, the part that I really get a little confused with. In the > Death Eater Circle, he rants about how none of his death eaters > went to find him, about how the LeStranges were loyal to him > always, etc... but then also speaks of his loyal servant at > Hogwarts. Here's my problem. 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? It isn't, very. I agree with you. I don't think that Voldemort knows about it. Judy, on the other hand, suggested: > Perhaps Barty Jr wanted to stay out of Azkaban primarily so that he > could find Voldemort and return him to power. It is in fact canon > that Barty Jr. was much more interested in helping Voldemort than > in staying safe and sound outside of Azkaban; this is why his > father put him under Imperio. Yeah, that really wasn't very clever of little Barty, was it? Not very *sneaky.* He couldn't have managed to feign conversion -- or at the very least submissive gratitude -- at *all?* Not even long enough to get the chance to slip away once his father's back was turned? For heaven's sake, what kind of a master manipulator *is* he, anyway? What happened to all of that intellect? Where were all of those brilliant thespian talents? This, by the way, is the main reason that I've never been able to accept the suggestion (which a number of people have proposed on this list in the past) that young Crouch's hysteria in the Pensieve was just another one of his Oscar-winning performances, designed to manipulate his parents' emotions. I just can't buy that. After all, if he were really that emotionally controlled at that point in his life, then why on earth would he have allowed his father to realize that he "thought of nothing" but restoring his fallen master to power? No, I think that it took Barty a good decade under the Imperius to develop quite the degree of identity loss necessary to be that good an actor. His behavior in the Pensieve was manipulative, all right. But I don't think that he was precisely *acting,* either. That was a genuine crisis of nerves. But this leads us to an interesting question. If Voldemort did know that Barty had denounced him at his sentencing, and if he believed that Barty had done only in an attempt to manipulate his way out of prison so that he could continue his service, would Voldemort consider that "loyal" or "disloyal" behavior? Judy thinks the former: > I don't think Voldemort would mind being denounced if it increased > his chances of regaining his body. I don't know if I agree. I certainly think that Voldemort would put *up* with it, but I don't really know if I believe that it would qualify Barty for designation as someone "whose loyalty has never wavered." Judy also wrote: > And in fact, one could argue that Barty Jr's denouncing him did > just that. If Barty Jr. had proclaimed his undying devotion to > Voldemort, as the woman in the Pensieve scene did, his parents > might not have helped him escape, and he would not have been > available to help Voldemort regain power. True enough. But then, we generally assume that the woman in the Pensieve scene is Mrs. Lestrange, don't we? And Voldemort praises the Lestranges to the *skies* in the graveyard scene. He praises them even more fulsomely than he does his "loyal servant at Hogwarts," and unlike his servant at Hogwarts, they haven't done squat for him in over a decade. Voldemort strikes me as overall more megalomaniacal than tactical, more proud than pragmatic. He can recognize the value of Lucius Malfoy's "slipperiness," but I don't get the impression that he really likes it all that much. I don't think that he cares much for his servants renouncing him in public, even when it is strategically wise for them to do so. I tend to agree with Aesha when she says: > On page 10, US hardback, it says: "Wormtail, I need somebody with > brains, somebody whose loyalty has never wavered, and you, > unfortunately, fulfill neither requirement." Curious. I suppose > one could argue that Voldemort knew that BartyJr. had been to > Azkaban and not how he had acted at the trial. That's my interpretation. And after all, how would Voldemort have learned about it? It happened after his fall, and after Peter had fled into hiding as a rat. Even if the Weasleys knew about young Crouch's pathetic appearance at his trial, would they really have mentioned it in front of Percy (or his pet rat, for that matter)? I rather doubt it. And I'm absolutely positive that young Crouch himself never breathed a *word* about his unfortunate little crisis of nerves to his newly-returned baby master. The only way that I can imagine Voldemort having learned that Barty denounced him at his sentencing would have been from Bertha Jorkins. Given that Bertha (or, rather, her Memory Charm) was more concerned with Barty's *loyalty* than with his disloyalty, though, it's quite likely that the subject would never have come up. I rather imagine that what Voldemort learned from Jorkins was merely that this group of people had tried to seek him out after his fall, that they had been caught and sentenced to life in Azkaban, that Crouch had secretly rescued his son, and that said son was still loyal and currently kept enslaved by the Imperius Curse in his father's house. All of which would suffice to designate Barty as a person whose loyalty had never wavered. -- Elkins From usergoogol at yahoo.com Wed Jun 26 01:55:48 2002 From: usergoogol at yahoo.com (usergoogol) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 01:55:48 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Death Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40365 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lizbot1981" wrote: > 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" If I have been properly informed, (and I haven't, truth be told) a Rowling interview said that we will, eventually, find out something about Ghosts. Thusly, maybe the key to killing Voldemort will be in understanding how spirits/souls/ghosts work in the Potterverse? ~User "So sigs are mandatory?" Googol~ From alisonb2210 at yahoo.com.au Wed Jun 26 02:11:33 2002 From: alisonb2210 at yahoo.com.au (alisonb2210) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 02:11:33 -0000 Subject: Snape's "sudden movement" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40366 I have a theory regarding Professor Snape's 'sudden movement' in GoF. (British paperback edition, chapter 36, page 613 The Parting of the Ways) When Harry starts shouting the names of the Death Eaters he saw in the graveyard, Snape makes a 'sudden movement' but recovers himself quickly when Harry looks at him. Although i would like to think Snape is now on the good side, i think this may be a clue that he is not. We are supposed to think that Snape is the Death Eater that has "left the fold forever" (Voldemort) but what if he isn't? Voldemort never referred to this Death Eater by name. In the graveyard scene he passes a few of the Death Eaters without comment and stops to talk to others. Snape could have been one that he passed without comment. The reason Moody/Crouch hated Snape? He told Harry when he arrived back at Hogwarts that he hates nothing more than a Death Eater who walked free. Why does Dumbledore trust him? Dumbledore is good, but he's not that good. He's been mistaken before this. And who may the Death Eater that left the fold be? i think it could be Fudge. When Snape shows him the Dark Mark on his arm this could have been a veiled threat to him. i'm probably wrong, but i think this is the sort of plot twist JKR is becoming well known for. I think this part of the book is somehow important and will come up again in later books. Are there any other theories regarding this? Alison. (newbie) :) From usergoogol at yahoo.com Wed Jun 26 02:33:05 2002 From: usergoogol at yahoo.com (usergoogol) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 02:33:05 -0000 Subject: Will Wormtail pull a Gollum? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40367 If any of you have read Lord of the Rings (and since most of you are intellegent adults, you'd better have) (and if you haven't, I will be spoiling a bit of it for you right now, so run away if you're afraid of spoilers) than you may have noticed a slight similarity between Gollum and Wormtail. Noticable differences of course, but lets get down to business. At some point near the end of The Lord of the Rings, Frodo is at the cracks of doom, the only place where the Ring can be destroyed, but has become too corrupted by the ring to be able to destroy it. And then Gollum comes in, bites the ring off of Frodo's hand, and then falls into the Volcano to his doom. I loved this ending when I read it, because there's something... interesting about it. A thoroughly dispicable character saves the day by being very dispicable. This is where Peter "Wormtail" Perrigrew comes in. Perrigrew's life was saved by Harry, (much like Gollum was by Bilbo, come to think of it) and Dumbledore, at some point, pointed out that the life bond between Wormtail and Harry is very strong. Any idiot will be able to tell that SOMETHING willl come of this, unless Rowling has decided to leave alot of bits in her story which never gets resolved. Except Perrigrew will probably not do a truly selfless act. Its not in his nature. But he will do something, which I predict to be a very selfish act. Imagine if Wormtail, when Voldemort was in his most powerful state, and noone else can save the day, does something stupid to save the world? I just love everything about the idea for some odd reason. (While we're at it, I think that the Wizard World should recontinue contact with the Muggles. I'm not saying it'll happen in a book, but it should.) ~User "This is my sig, you may all go home now." Googol~ From editor at texas.net Wed Jun 26 03:15:19 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:15:19 -0500 Subject: Fear of Werewolves is Justified (was Defense of Hagrid, Hagrid's Teaching, Flobberworms, etc.) References: Message-ID: <004501c21cbf$b4a15b40$787d63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40368 Darrin said, in the long list highlighting the clay feet of the Hogwarts teaching staff: > * Undercutting another faculty member by assigning homework with the > intended result of outing that faculty member as a member of a group > targeted for bigotry? Snape Okay. I don't dislike Lupin; I like his character very much. That said... He is a *werewolf.* In my eyes, that is considerably more than simply being "a member of a group targeted for bigotry." That is being a member of a group that is damned dangerous. Lycanthropy is incurable; it will cut you off from society, the only parallel I can think of as adequate is leprosy and how leprosy has been perceived. Devastating. Permanent. Painful. Final. As a parent, I would immediately have requested Lupin's dismissal. I would not have wanted my children exposed to any such danger. Even if I made the decision, for myself, to associate with a werewolf, being sure that he was in control of himself, I still would not make that decision for my children. I would protect them. I certainly would not want someone else making that decision, without even letting me know. Snape considers that Lupin is a danger. I think this is true whether or not Lupin was assisting Black. I think the werewolf thing is enough. Snape may well have enjoyed letting it slip, after having held his tongue all year, but he is nothing if not multi-motivational. I don't think he was nice about it, but I don't think he was wrong. Hagrid, on the other hand, *is* simply "a member of a group targeted for bigotry." We are not shown how Snape reacts to Hagrid's lineage, but I'm willing to bet he has taken his cue from Dumbledore and treats with the individual, rather than the category. Hagrid is not a devastating threat to the students; Lupin is. --Amanda From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Wed Jun 26 03:21:21 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 03:21:21 -0000 Subject: Question for Hagrid Disapprovers/Defense of Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40369 Suzanne wrote: <<>> I think... we're supposed to root for Hagrid, to see him as unfairly treated because of his background (especially in the Rita Skeeter- giant expose/expulsion incidents). And I agree that he was mistreated in those cases. And I agree that he is a symbol of diversity, and of tolerance, two very important things. But I do think JKR heaped too many flaws/mistakes/what-have-you into Hagrid's character for him to be as sympathetic (for me, anyway) as she intends him to be. And I guess that's my problem. I feel like JKR *wants* me to like Hagrid. That she wants me to cheer when he's made a teacher, for example. That she wants me to be glad he doesn't get into trouble for hatching Norbert. But instead, I get upset, and think: He's not up to the responsiblity to teach (the flobberworms, not the Draco Incident)! He let *students* take his fall with Norbert! Maybe... maybe the problem with Hagrid's character is that JKR is trying to do two things with him: 1) make him sympathetic, and a symbol of diversity 2) make him a weak link, who causes trouble (Fluffy) & leaks information (Skeeter) That's a fine line to walk, so I guess it's not surprising Hagrid has his staunch supporters and detractors. Me, I wish I could like him: he loves Harry, and Harry needs all the love he can get. But instead, I worry. And get aggravated sometimes. Aldrea said that I said: <<>Hagrid's curriculum does get better after Rita Skeeter's article(a year and a half after he begins teaching). He teaches a class on Nifflers. (Maybe Professor Grubbly-Plank left him some lesson plans.) It's pretty good, possibly his best class ever. It looks like he's got some confidence. And IIRC, we don't see him drinking after the Yule Ball.>> Um, sorry. Wasn't me! It's true though, that his curriculum *does* get better. But it took an awful long time! I personally lay some blame at Dumbledore's door for his teaching. Hagrid's not trained. Yes, it's great for kids to interact with a half-giant; but I'm not sure he was up to the responsibility to teach. Maybe he'll do better in OOP. Caroline From skelkins at attbi.com Wed Jun 26 04:01:05 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 04:01:05 -0000 Subject: Wormtail's Name In the Confession (WAS: Spying Game...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40370 Snazzzybird wrote: > In GoF when Barty Crouch Jr. is confessing under Veritaserum, he > says that Voldemort came to his house to free him from his father's > Imperius Curse ? in the arms of his servant, Wormtail. I may not > have the wording exactly right; don't have the book in front of > me ? but Crouch definitely refers to Pettigrew as "Wormtail". Welcome, Snazzzybird! (Is it really spelled with those three z's, or am I just faithfully adhering to a typo?) Yes, Crouch does refer to Pettigrew as "Wormtail," not only that once ("He arrived at our house late one night in the arms of his servant Wormtail"), but throughout the entirety of his confession. For that matter, Dumbledore also falls into line with Crouch's usage in his questioning: "And what became of Wormtail after you attacked Moody?" Snazzzybird: > That wasn't his "Death-Eater Name", it was his "Marauder Name". "Wormtail" might very well have been his "Death-Eater Name," actually. We just don't know. When Sirius talks about the imprisoned DEs crying out in their sleep over Pettigrew's role in their master's downfall, he never once specifies precisely *how* they refer to him. If in fact those imprisoned DEs have only been moaning and gibbering about somebody named "Wormtail," then that would explain why none of the guards (are there human governors as well as dementors at Azkaban?) or visitors to the prison had ever once noticed this and come to suspect from it that perhaps Pettigrew might really be alive after all. The only person hearing them with the proper background to know that "Wormtail" must have been Peter Pettigrew would have been Sirius himself -- and he was already hip to that little plot twist, now, wasn't he? In fact, it has been suggested that perhaps Snape's reaction to the Marauder's Map might have been due to the fact that while he didn't actually know the schoolboy nick-names of Potters' crowd, he *did* recognize the name "Wormtail" as the handle of one of his erstwhile DE colleagues -- possibly even as the DE colleague he knew to be responsible for the Potters' deaths. In other words, Snape might have thought that "Wormtail" was *Sirius.* I can never quite manage to believe that one, myself. But it's certainly a neat theory. > Why Wouldn't Crouch call him "Peter" or "Pettigrew"? Wouldn't he > know his real name? Quite likely not. The DEs wear masks to their meetings, and Karkaroff claimed at his plea bargain that they were not always aware of each others' identities. Voldemort never once addresses Pettigrew as anything other than "Wormtail" in the course of GoF. So even if Crouch had known that there had once been a Death Eater named "Peter Pettigrew" (which he quite likely would have: Pettigrew's role as the Potters' betrayers seems to have been fairly common knowledge among the DEs, and even if Crouch hadn't known it before his imprisonment, he would have had ample opportunity to learn it from all of those prisoners moaning in their sleep), he still likely never met him in person. He wouldn't know what he had looked like. And I very much doubt that it would occur to him to identify Wormtail, his master's cringing servant, with Peter Pettigrew, the DE known for having betrayed Voldemort to his doom at Godric's Hollow. Snazzzybird: > Well, possibly Voldemort always called him "Wormtail". But even if > so ? *why*? There are two ways of approaching this question: one of them focused on the internal logic of the fictive world, and the other on the manipulations of the authorial voice. Looking at it from within the constraints of the fictional reality, I would say that Voldemort calls Pettigrew "Wormtail" because it is a degrading-sounding name *and* one that Voldemort knows full well was originally bestowed upon him as a mark of affection from the people that he later betrayed. Voldemort is both a sadist and a corrupter. He likes reminding people of that sort of thing. In terms of authorial technique, though... Snazzzybird suggested: > I think the reason is exactly as stated by Davewitley. JKR doesn't > want Crouch to provide backup for Harry's story that Pettigrew is > alive ? therefore Sirius is innocent. But JKR herself would already knows that Crouch is never going to get that chance, wouldn't she? As the author, she is perfectly well aware that Crouch isn't going to have any opportunity to testify to the ministry, or even to blab to Cornelius Fudge, because she's already laid her plans in place for young Barty, hasn't she? Ooooh, yes. Ruthless Rowling isn't about to let the likes of little Barty Crouch mess up her plotline. Loose Lips Sink Plotlines, and so she's already got Fudge's Dementor waiting in the wings to take care of *that* little problem. Because you know, when it comes to that whole ends/means debate, there is absolutely *no one* quite as slanted toward the ends as a bestselling author protecting her plotline. In comparison, even LeCarresque Spymaster!Dumbledore begins to turn a whiter shade of pale. JKR may like to think that she belongs in Gryffindor, but the instant that she sits down to that keyboard, she is Slytherin to the core. So. If the reason that nobody refers to Pettigrew by any name other than "Wormtail" in the confession scene is really the author's desire to keep Sirius' innocence a secret, then what we can deduce from that is that JKR is concerned with one (or both) of two characters: McGonagall and Winky. Those are only two characters in the scene whose ignorance might require special authorial effort to maintain. Every other character present for the confessional either already knows that Pettigrew is guilty (Dumbledore, Harry), or will shortly be forced to accept Sirius' freedom, if not necessarily his innocence (Snape). If the real reason for the naming convention is to protect the plot, then McGonagall and Winky are the characters whose ignorance of Sirius' innocence are relevant and important. And indeed, it's certainly possible that JKR was working there to keep McGonagall and/or Winky in the dark. I can think of a number of reasons why she might wish to do so. Primarily, though, I think that the reason for Pettigrew's effective name change in Book Four is less one of plot than of *theme.* It is not only the characters who refer to Pettigrew as "Wormtail" throughout GoF. The narration does so as well. On a very fundamental level, this character's name *changes* between the end of PoA and the beginning of GoF. It changes not only in terms of how other characters address him, but also in terms of how the very narrative voice refers to him. This, I believe, is at heart a matter of thematic emphasis. Pettigrew/Wormtail's change in name reflects his fundamental degradation of identity. At the end of PoA, I believe that we are meant to understand that Pettigrew has in some sense voluntarily forfefited his own humanity. Of the three characters (Sirius, Remus and Peter) who revert to their animal forms on the way back from the Shrieking Shack at the end of PoA, Peter is the only one who does so *voluntarily.* Remus is a victim of lycanthropy. Sirius is trying to protect himself from the dementors; it is not even clear to what extent he has any conscious control over his reversion to dog form. Peter, on the other hand, reverts to rat form only to facilitate his own escape from justice. He reverts out of pure self-interest, to save himself from prosecution and imprisonment, and he breaks his word in the bargain. So I think that we can in some sense read Pettigrew's dehumanization in Book Four as not only self-inflicted, but also to a certain degree essential. He has forfeited his humanity and with it his right to a human name; the text reflects this by showing us not only sadistic characters like Voldemort or injured parties like Harry (both of whom might have their own reasons for wanting to go out of their way to dehumanize him), but even the narration itself referring to him only as "Wormtail." Post-PoA, that simply *is* this character's name. If we are indeed, as has often been hypothesized, eventually going to see a worm(tail) turn, thus saving Harry's bacon at some point late in the series, then I'd lay odds that at the exact same point in the story, we will also see the narration grant him the dignity of restoring his human name. Probably just before (or just after) he dies. -- Elkins From chetah27 at hotmail.com Wed Jun 26 05:38:21 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 05:38:21 -0000 Subject: Defense of Hagrid, Hagrid's Teaching, Flobberworms, etc.(long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40371 Caroline called me on a misquoting- Sorry Caroline! I guess it was in one of your posts and I didn't see that you were quoting someone else. My bad. Jenny: >>It is inappropriate. Would you have wanted to hear your teachers tell you about their personal problems?>> If I were their *friend*, yes. I care about all of my friends, no matter their jobs, and so if they had personal problems I would like to know about them to help them through them in whatever way I could. And again, Hagrid never went outright and asked the Trio to help him with his problems, IIRC. They always *offered*. And he certainly didn't go blubbering to them about Beaky while he was supposed to be teaching- I can see the inapropriateness of that. But he didn't do that. Jenny: >>If you were a teacher, would you have accepted the help of your students when you knew they should have been doing their homework - or when you should have been taking care of things yourself?>> I suppose you're referring to the Buckbeak incident? Really, though, Hagrid couldn't have possibly put together a worthy defense on his own. And the students OFFERED, for crying out loud. He was even shocked at the proposal of looking up such things to help defend Buckbeak, IIRC. But it's not unusual for students to volunteer to help teachers or for teachers to request volunteers- atleast, not in my experiences. I remember being in 2nd grade, and my teacher would ask if anyone would like to help in grading papers. Just this year, while at school, the superintendent was paying a visit and in the days beforehand alot of my teachers inlisted the help of myself and my classmates in cleaning the classrooms from top to bottom. Also, in band class my band director asked for volunteers to be runners while the All Region try outs were going on one saturday. So, I don't think the Buckbeak incident makes Hagrid an unworthy teacher at all. Some of his students volunteered to help him... So? Jenny: >>I never said Hagrid should have put his hands on Draco and I never said that Karkaroff deserved to get slammed up against a tree.>> And I never said that you said that Karkaroff deserved to get slammed. I said that I thought he did. =P And on the Draco thing- well, *shrugs*, guess I misinterpreted. Jenny: >>What I meant, though, is that Hagrid could have been much stricter with Draco and certainly could have made a good case (with all of his Gryffindor students to back him as witnesses, I'm sure) against Draco's behavior. Draco has been punished before - in SS and in PoA. He is not above punishment.>> True. But it was his first lesson of his first day. And a student gets attacked. The son of one of the governors got attacked. Hagrid's first concern was to get Draco to the Hospital Wing. And he did that. And afterwards, the only thing we can tell that happened is that the Governors slapped him on the wrist and said "No, too dangerous. Try flobberworms, they won't attack anyone!" And that's what he did. We don't even know if it was even thought of to punish Draco- I guess being injured was enough to punish him. There are plenty of times in the books when the Trio should be punished, but aren't. Or when they shouldn't be, but are. Jenny: >>I think it's a shame that Hagrid can't think on his feet more often, something teachers generally have to learn to be good at.>> *coughs* "learn to be good at". Is that not what Hagrid is doing? His first class, a little disasterous, because Draco caused problems. Next time Draco starts to even hint at goofing off? Hagrid is right there, making sure the little git doesn't do anything harmful again. Pippin: >>Flobberworms seem to have been the standard curriculum as recommended by the Board of Governors, which makes some sense to me. The students need to master basic animal husbandry before going on to interestin' creatures, and they also need to learn that, yes, taking care of animals can be dull and repititious. You can't stop taking care of an animal that's depending on you to feed it just because it got boring.>> Jenny: >>Hagrid as a teacher is just something that I don't approve of. In reality (and I know HP isn't reality - most of the time, anyway), Hagrid would have received all sorts of professional support and training right after the Buckbeak incident, but by the end of the year when the students had done nothing but fed Flobberworms for nine months, he would have been removed or transferred. Whether or not it was suggested to him to start with Flobberworms, he should have had the common sense to know to move on to other things after a few days - maybe a week at the most. >> After Pippin's arguements, I really can't think that the Flobberworms incident was that bad of a thing. Hagrid does NOT deserve to get fired/transferred because he listened to what his superiors said or because Draco didn't pay attention. Hagrid has taught the class, as Pippin pointed out, that taking care of Magical Creatures isn't all fun and games- sometimes it's flobberworms. And sometimes it's Blast- Ended Skrewts(did the class not spend most of the year dealing with those?). Neither of which are as enjoyable as unicorns or nifflers. But if Hagrid spent only a week on each animal, he'd get through most of the Magical Creatures(and this is going on the ones we learn in FB), before his classes graduated- he does have to teach them for five years. I'd say he has enough time to spend almost a year on Flobberworms if he wants to. It is, afterall, Care of Magical Creatures- and the class was taking care of a magical creature, were they not? ~Aldrea, who is starting to feel that she and Jenny will just have to agree to disagree on anything having to do remotely with Hagrid and/or his teaching abilities. Otherwise, she'll never ever catch up here(about 8 pages behind!), because she'll be spending her time defending Hagrid against Jenny. =P From angiebebb at hotmail.com Wed Jun 26 06:01:22 2002 From: angiebebb at hotmail.com (kittycatta) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 06:01:22 -0000 Subject: Weasleys and Money Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40372 Hana: <<<>>> Me: That is true. That is probably what I would also do, go and buy robes and things, and especially books. It certainly seems the practical thing to do. But . . . if the Weasleys had gone to Flourish and Blotts to get books, would they have that picture of the *entire* family, including Scabbers/Pettigrew, in the Daily Prophet? Remember, in the denouement of PoA, Sirius told them that he had learned that Scabbers/Pettigrew was alive by that picture in the Daily Prophet. We know (although sometimes we pretend we don't ;) that JKR sometimes has to stretch a point in order to make other points of the book work. So, I'll believe that the Weasley family went to Egypt instead of buying books, if it ends up revealing that Scabbers is really Peter Pettigrew. -Catta, who went over this pathetic first post for an hour in hopes that she won't make a fool of herself. From miss_dumblydore at yahoo.com Wed Jun 26 04:01:17 2002 From: miss_dumblydore at yahoo.com (Heather Gauen) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 21:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A superfluous point In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020626040117.30444.qmail@web20416.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40373 Okay, everyone, let's hope that this one is worth posting, since my last one still hasn't made it up... :) I don't think that anything JKR has written could be classified as superfluous (and I am in total agreement with Pippin's quote about every sentence serving a purpose). One of the great things about the HP books is the fact that there is almost always action pushing the plot forward. As a high school student, I can tell you that there are far too many books on this earth that spend four pages describing the exact color of the sky. If that "pointless" passage in the Grim Defeat chapter went something like, "Harry awoke early and stared out the window at the storm. The sky was slate gray, not at all a soft cheerful gray, but the precise shade of cold steel gray that can be found at the deepest depths of a stormy sea..." etc, etc., then yes, it would most certainly be superfluous. But JKR doesn't dwell on the boring details like that; Harry is actually *doing* something. Secondly, the parts that don't provide the essential details and perhaps aren't even that entertaining still add up to create an atmosphere for the story. When Harry is startled awake and is too nervous to sleep, we get an idea of his mindset that morning. The raging storm is a backdrop for the tough, ultimately losing battle of the Quiddich match. Certainly JKR could have merely said, "Harry was nervous when he woke up and it was storming," but that wouldn't have set the mood as well. I believe someone used the phrase "show, don't tell" to explain why details such as the Portkey chapter were included. It made for a much better book to seamlessly incorporate the necessary details, such as how a portkey worked, instead of slapping them in wherever. That's another great thing about JKR: her element of surprise. The clues are all there, but worked into the story so well that they don't jump out at you screaming, "Look at me, I'm an important detail! Remember me for later!" It makes for a better read the second time around as well, to find the clues you missed the first time. Basically, all of this is a long rant saying one thing: Rowling could have cut out all details that could be described as superfluous, leaving only the bare bones story and the essential clues, but it would have made the books predictable and, well, boring. Heather, whose parents are an English teacher and an editor and begs you not to think her crazy because she gets worked up over things like superfluity __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From anglinsbees at yahoo.com Wed Jun 26 07:23:25 2002 From: anglinsbees at yahoo.com (anglinsbees) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 07:23:25 -0000 Subject: Fear of Werewolves is Justified / AIDS In-Reply-To: <004501c21cbf$b4a15b40$787d63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40374 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda Geist" wrote: > > Okay. I don't dislike Lupin; I like his character very much. That said... > > He is a *werewolf.* In my eyes, that is considerably more than simply being > "a member of a group targeted for bigotry." That is being a member of a > group that is damned dangerous. Lycanthropy is incurable; it will cut you > off from society, the only parallel I can think of as adequate is leprosy > and how leprosy has been perceived. Devastating. Permanent. Painful. Final. > I think a better analogy is AIDS. thre are many paralells; It is a contageous disease, with no cure, that people are highly fearful of, despite the fact that it is not easy to catch, and the methods of transmission may be avoided by simple common sense procedures. The disease is very difficult/ draining on the person who has it. They may, with proper treatment/management live for many years, however, Treatment is expensive or difficult. Few people are up to making the wolvesbane potion, and anti-viral medications are extremely expensive, and only readily availble in developed countries. Without treatment, Aids progresses Quickly, and werewolves are prone to tearing themselves to pieces or other self destructive behavior. Lupin mentions, I believe, in the shrieking shack scene, that there was no treatment when he was bitten. This implies to me that now, if the injury is treated immediately, there is at least a hope for preventing infection. (Rather like someone who has accidentally been exposed to HIV getting injections of anti- viral mediactions to prevent infection today.) If someone recalls the exact quote, I'd appreciate backup! Like Rowlings werewoves, many people who are HIV+ choose to conceal it, because of the real possibility of being ostracized or of losing their jobs. There many cases of school teachers who have lost their jobs because they have AIDS, and many parents who have raised an uproar when they found out their childrens teachers or other caregivers were HIV+ How unsettled would you be if you found out someone close to your child was HIV+? As much as the rational part of our mind wants to be fair, some deep primal protective instinct can't help but rear its head, as it were, in most parents. Can we really fault wizards for fearing and ostracizing werewolves when our society did and does the same to HIV+ people? I can't see Lupins position improving unless the wizarding world gets a massive public education campaign similar to that that has happened for AIDS. Even with that, there will always be people who fear. So what do you think- how does this paralell hold up? Ellen A Pottering Beekeeper proposing WAPTA- Werewolves Are Paralell To AIDS (Unless you genuses can come up with a better one!) From bard7696 at aol.com Wed Jun 26 11:17:45 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:17:45 -0000 Subject: Fear of Werewolves is Justified (was Defense of Hagrid, Hagrid's Teaching, Flobberworms, etc.) In-Reply-To: <004501c21cbf$b4a15b40$787d63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40375 7Amanda said: > Okay. I don't dislike Lupin; I like his character very much. That said... > > He is a *werewolf.* In my eyes, that is considerably more than simply being > "a member of a group targeted for bigotry." That is being a member of a > group that is damned dangerous. Lycanthropy is incurable; it will cut you > off from society, the only parallel I can think of as adequate is leprosy > and how leprosy has been perceived. Devastating. Permanent. Painful. Final. > > As a parent, I would immediately have requested Lupin's dismissal. I would > not have wanted my children exposed to any such danger. Even if I made the > decision, for myself, to associate with a werewolf, being sure that he was > in control of himself, I still would not make that decision for my children. > I would protect them. I certainly would not want someone else making that > decision, without even letting me know. > > Snape considers that Lupin is a danger. I think this is true whether or not > Lupin was assisting Black. I think the werewolf thing is enough. Snape may > well have enjoyed letting it slip, after having held his tongue all year, > but he is nothing if not multi-motivational. I don't think he was nice about > it, but I don't think he was wrong. I say: Perhaps the result of his actions is not wrong, but his motivation for doing them, as I read the text, is completely unprofessional as a teacher, which is what this discussion is about. What really motivated Snape to first attempt to get the students to figure it out (by the werewolf essay) and then to flat-out tell the Slytherins? I certainly don't believe it was fear of a werewolf or concern for the well-being of the students. Lupin was the most popular DADA teacher in quite some time, and given the students' enjoyment of his lessons, would have that post as long as he wanted it OR until his condition was made public. Again, I don't disagree that having a werewolf teach class is a shaky situation to say the least, but I simply don't believe Snape cared a damn for any of that. His history shows that he is cavalier with the students' well-being. Snape got exactly what he needed from that night in the Shrieking Shack, an excuse to reveal Lupin. Had a student died, it probably just makes his case that much stronger. > Hagrid, on the other hand, *is* simply "a member of a group targeted for > bigotry." We are not shown how Snape reacts to Hagrid's lineage, but I'm > willing to bet he has taken his cue from Dumbledore and treats with the > individual, rather than the category. Hagrid is not a devastating threat to > the students; Lupin is. > And Snape doesn't want Hagrid's job. Nor does he hate Hagrid from his schoolboy days. As for the AIDS parallel that Ellen: I think the most apt parallel is a teacher with a psychological condition that must be controlled by medication. Students are in no real danger from a teacher that has AIDS, but a werewolf is a danger. Darrin -- has a psychological condition that must be controlled by ice cream From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 26 11:35:23 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:35:23 -0000 Subject: Fear of Werewolves is Justified (was Defense of Hagrid, Hagrid's Teaching, Flobberworms, etc.) In-Reply-To: <004501c21cbf$b4a15b40$787d63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40376 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda Geist" wrote: > Okay. I don't dislike Lupin; I like his character very much. That said... > > He is a *werewolf.* In my eyes, that is considerably more than simply being > "a member of a group targeted for bigotry." That is being a member of a > group that is damned dangerous. Lycanthropy is incurable; it will cut you > off from society, the only parallel I can think of as adequate is leprosy > and how leprosy has been perceived. Devastating. Permanent. Painful. Final. > That's not a bad parallel, given that leprosy is treatable with modern medication and not nearly as contagious as most people think. Lupin is perfectly safe the vast majority of the time, and the times that he's not safe can be accurately predicted and easily planned for. Medication is available to control his symptoms. There is no reason why he shouldn't be teaching. In fact, the biggest danger comes from the secrecy imposed on him by anti-werewolf bigotry. The most sensible way to deal with Lupin's presence at Hogwarts would've been to announce to everyone at the start of the year that Professor Lupin is a werewolf. Then the dates of the full moon could be publically posted every month so everyone would know to stay inside those nights (students are supposed to be in their dorms at night anyway). Unfortunately, the WW's attitude toward werewolves made such action impossible. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk Wed Jun 26 11:35:35 2002 From: Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk (pamscotland) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 11:35:35 -0000 Subject: Book Differences - the future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40377 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "trisanagranger" wrote: > Most people that age have no problem using > "context clues" or whatever to figure out word's meanings. However, > younger readers might have more of a problem. My 9-year-old brother > has problems with the books as they are now. I am very interested in the American perspective on the changes that have been made for the American market. I have often wondered whether any changes are made to American books to suit the British market - and I think the answer is usually no changes are made. Now the fact that British children don't seem to have a problem reading American books may be because they have become used to Americanisms through watching a lot of American television programmes. I doubt that American children watch as much British television. According to one local primary school teacher, it does become a problem when there is a popular American book and the children start dropping the u's from colour, flavour etc. etc. etc. And I don't think I'm the only Brit who feels a teeniest weeniest prickle when I hear or read 'math' rather than 'maths'! I do think, however, that younger children (probably age 9 and below) benefit from reading the Harry Potter books with an adult close by - particularly as the later ones get a little darker. Apart from anything else, children do get into difficulties with pronunciation. I had discussed the pronuciation of many words in the books with my children only to be told that I must be wrong because all their friends pronounced them differently (and no, none of the other parents had read any of the books). My credibility was restored when we all went to a JKR reading and, guess what, Mum was right all along (apart from Voldemort - for some obscure reason I was sure it was a silent t but I can't imagine why on earth I thought that). It was clear from the questions put to JKR by children at the reading that many of them had problems pronouncing words which to an adult would probably have been fairly self-evident e.g. Triwizard - an adult is more likely to be familiar with the concept of tri- meaning three and would pronounce it Tri (to rhyme with 'eye') whereas a number of the kids were pronouncing Triwizard as though the i was very, very short. JKR was great with them - correcting pronounciation very gently and then explaining why and where the word came from. Cheers for now Pam From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Wed Jun 26 12:17:36 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:17:36 -0000 Subject: Voldemort-Potter connection In-Reply-To: <49.1f6cefdd.2a49dfb0@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40378 I said that Voldemort is described as the last surviving descendent of Slytherin in some versions of CoS, and last surviving *ancestor* in other versions. JKR was asked about this is an interview, and said something like "You've noticed the deliberate error." And Eloise responded: > I'm sure I'm stating the obvious, but, in British usage at least, 'Ah, you've noticed the deliberate error,' is such a common way of admitting a mistake ... that I've always taken it to be just that. As Judy so graphically demonstrates, you have to jump through a lot of rings to get 'ancestor' to make any sense. < No, it wasn't obvious, at least not to me. I wasn't aware that "deliberate error" was just a euphemistic way of admiting a mistake in the UK. However, I'm still not sure *which* was an error -- "ancestor", or "descendent". I believe the earliest versions of the book said "ancestor", and it was then changed to "descendent." However, it may have later been changed back to "ancestor." I have the US paperback version (Scholastic, copyright 2000) and it says "ancestor." I saw a copy of CoS for sale today, and it was the same version that I have, same printing, and yes, it said "ancestor." My guess is, it was supposed to read that Voldemort is the last descendent of Slytherin, I'm not 100% sure. -- Judy From bard7696 at aol.com Wed Jun 26 12:31:54 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:31:54 -0000 Subject: Voldemort-Potter connection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40379 Judy wrote: > I said that Voldemort is described as the last surviving descendent of > Slytherin in some versions of CoS, and last surviving *ancestor* in > other versions. JKR was asked about this is an interview, and said > something like "You've noticed the deliberate error." > > And Eloise responded: > > I'm sure I'm stating the obvious, but, in British usage at least, > 'Ah, you've noticed the deliberate error,' is such a common way of > admitting a mistake ... that I've always taken it to be just that. As > Judy so graphically demonstrates, you have to jump through a lot of > rings to get 'ancestor' to make any sense. < > > No, it wasn't obvious, at least not to me. I wasn't aware that > "deliberate error" was just a euphemistic way of admiting a mistake in > the UK. However, I'm still not sure *which* was an error -- > "ancestor", or "descendent". > > I believe the earliest versions of the book said "ancestor", and it > was then changed to "descendent." However, it may have later been > changed back to "ancestor." I have the US paperback version > (Scholastic, copyright 2000) and it says "ancestor." I saw a copy of > CoS for sale today, and it was the same version that I have, same > printing, and yes, it said "ancestor." > > My guess is, it was supposed to read that Voldemort is the last > descendent of Slytherin, I'm not 100% sure. > The only explanation I can see right now, barring some confusing time- travel thing that results in elephant-choking posts trying to explain -- or debunk -- JKR's logic, is an interesting splitting of hairs. Dumbledore says that Voldemort is the last remaining ancestor of Slytherin. He doesn't say Tom Riddle. He says Voldemort. The evil being Voldemort has existed in one form or another for centuries. Mortal wizards of a certain disposition are susceptible to being possessed. Perhaps Salazar Slytherin was one of these. We know Tom Riddle was. Again -- a horrible reach that I'm not even sure I like. It involves Dumbledore making some Obi-Wan Kenobi type word splits. "Vader murdered your father, from a certain point of view." But I still don't understand why it was changed BACK from descendant. Darrin -- Secretly thinks that Voldemort is Harry's seventh-cousin, twice removed. From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Jun 26 12:39:25 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 07:39:25 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort-Potter connection Message-ID: <3359933.1025095165951.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40380 Darrin writes: >Dumbledore says that Voldemort is the last remaining ancestor of >Slytherin. > >He doesn't say Tom Riddle. He says Voldemort. > > > >The evil being Voldemort has existed in one form or another for >centuries. Mortal wizards of a certain disposition are susceptible to >being possessed. Perhaps Salazar Slytherin was one of these. We know >Tom Riddle was. Sorry, can't stretch that for. I still think that Tom Riddle IS Voldemort. Due to the lettering of his full name (Tom Mordova Riddle or something like that. Don't have COS with me). But anyway, the way he writes his name with his wand then rearranges the letters with his wand to become Lord Voldemort. He (Tom Riddle) sure thinks he's Voldemort anyway. Richelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ronale7 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 26 13:06:19 2002 From: ronale7 at yahoo.com (ronale7) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:06:19 -0000 Subject: Grandpa Voldemort Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40381 Nicole wrote: >>Also, as I reread COS, it seemed really strange to me that Tom Riddle makes a point of telling Harry that they look a lot alike. Now, I think it highly unlikely that it's one of those Luke-I-am-your-father situations. Rowling also points out how very much Harry looks like his dad. Are they related somehow? My husband has never read the books and has only seen the movie and when I mentioned this to him he made an interesting suggestion. What if Voldemort is Harry's grandfather? Oooh, it's so fun to speculate! Anyway, I really believe there must be something to the fact that Harry resembles Tom Riddle. I'd be interested to hear what others think about this. Nicole<< I'm a firm believer in Voldemort being Harry's grandfather. I think Tom Riddle sired James Potter. My scenario goes like this: Voldemort wanted to kill at least James because he had heard a prediction that a son of James would one day be his downfall. If he could kill Harry, and James to prevent him siring other sons, then he could avoid his fate. I call this the fatal child theory (see my post 38784). It does explain why Voldemort and Harry look somehat alike and why Voldemort wouldn't care whether Lily died. --Ronale7 From tracym255 at aol.com Wed Jun 26 13:13:31 2002 From: tracym255 at aol.com (mullsym255) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 13:13:31 -0000 Subject: Half-blood Squibs? / Weasley cousin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40382 I was just recently re-reading SS and I got to thinking about Seamus' comments about his muggle father and witch mother. Is wizarding blood considered dominant? That is, if you were a half blood (and not a half-blood like Harry might be considered, I mean like Seamus, one wizarding parent, one not) and you were born without magical abilities, would you be considered a squib? Or just a muggle who happens to have a witch for a mother or a wizard for a father? And another thing that has always bothered me.. forgive me, because I lent my books to a friend, but I believe Molly or perhaps Ron makes reference to a cousin who was a squib and ends up being an accountant? And that the family "doesn't speak of him". Why is this? The Weasleys strike me as incredibly tolerant and accepting people and Arthur obviously seems to have a fondness for muggles. So why would they shun a member of the family who happened to be a squib? Or is it that this cousin chose to exclude himself from the family? -Tracy From Edblanning at aol.com Wed Jun 26 13:58:30 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 09:58:30 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort-Potter connection Message-ID: <11d.131aaf5b.2a4b2286@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40383 Judy: > I believe the earliest versions of the book said "ancestor", and it > was then changed to "descendent." However, it may have later been > changed back to "ancestor." I have the US paperback version > (Scholastic, copyright 2000) and it says "ancestor." I saw a copy of > CoS for sale today, and it was the same version that I have, same > printing, and yes, it said "ancestor." The truth is out there! ;-) And I'm sure that either someone already knows, or if not we can work it out. I have the UK paperback (1998) which says 'descendent'. Could it be that UK editions were changed and the US ones fell through the net? Or is that far too simplistic? Does anyone have a US edition which says 'descendent'? What about foreign language editions? If we all pool our information, we might crack this one. Eloise (trusting that Judy would have remembered if this had already been done) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk Wed Jun 26 14:00:35 2002 From: Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk (pamscotland) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:00:35 -0000 Subject: Half-blood Squibs? / Weasley cousin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40384 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mullsym255" wrote: > And another thing that has always bothered me.. forgive me, because I > lent my books to a friend, but I believe Molly or perhaps Ron makes > reference to a cousin who was a squib and ends up being an > accountant? And that the family "doesn't speak of him". Why is this? > The Weasleys strike me as incredibly tolerant and accepting people > and Arthur obviously seems to have a fondness for muggles. So why > would they shun a member of the family who happened to be a squib? Or > is it that this cousin chose to exclude himself from the family? I think this is one of JKR's jokes! It really made me laugh! In my teens I suddenly found out that my grandfather's brother (my father's uncle) was the landlord of a pub (bar) not far from where we lived. I was born into a God-fearing teetotal family and, clearly, older members didn't talk about Uncle Sid because they were as ashamed of him and his chosen profession as they would have been if he had committed a really terrible crime, and they didn't want the younger members of the family to find out in case word got around amongst the teetotal God-fearing circle of acquaintance. (Tainted blood and all that.) It is obviously ridiculous 'not to talk' about a relative just because of the job they do. I was going to say that it was particularly ridiculous to be ashamed of a relative who is an accountant - but all of a sudden I'm not sure how I would feel if I had a relative who was an accountant after the news this morning! 8?)) I probably wouldn't talk about him or her! Of course that doesn't mean that such a person is totally cut off from the family - individual members of the family may still keep in touch. They just won't talk about him! 8?)) Cheers for now Pam From naama_gat at hotmail.com Wed Jun 26 14:06:32 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:06:32 -0000 Subject: Half-blood Squibs? / Weasley cousin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40385 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mullsym255" wrote: > > And another thing that has always bothered me.. forgive me, because I > lent my books to a friend, but I believe Molly or perhaps Ron makes > reference to a cousin who was a squib and ends up being an > accountant? And that the family "doesn't speak of him". Why is this? > The Weasleys strike me as incredibly tolerant and accepting people > and Arthur obviously seems to have a fondness for muggles. So why > would they shun a member of the family who happened to be a squib? > Or is it that this cousin chose to exclude himself from the family? > I don't have PS here also, but I remember the dialogue fairly well. It takes place between Ron and Harry, on the train to Hogwarts. Harry asks Ron if all his family are wizards, and Ron replies that they have a second cousin who's an accountant. The term 'squib' is not mentioned at all (we only learn of it in CoS). I always saw this as a bit of sly humour regarding accountants, certainly not reflecting any basic intolerance in the Weasleys. Naama From dicentra at xmission.com Wed Jun 26 15:04:35 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:04:35 -0000 Subject: Wormtail's Name In the Confession (WAS: Spying Game...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40386 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > At the end of PoA, I believe that we are meant to understand that > Pettigrew has in some sense voluntarily forfefited his own humanity. > Of the three characters (Sirius, Remus and Peter) who revert to their > animal forms on the way back from the Shrieking Shack at the end of > PoA, Peter is the only one who does so *voluntarily.* Remus is a > victim of lycanthropy. Sirius is trying to protect himself from the > dementors; it is not even clear to what extent he has any conscious > control over his reversion to dog form. Dicentra timidly raises her hand: Er, ma'am? Elkins ma'am? Not to undermine your theory or anything, but Sirius becomes Padfoot so he can latch his jaws onto the wolf's jugular, thereby protecting Harry et al. from the wolf. He doesn't seem to have conscious control over reverting back into a human as the dementors close in. So maybe you could amend this theory to read that Peter is the only one who transforms for *selfish* reasons. Remus can't help it, Sirius is protecting the Trio, and Peter is saving his own worthless little hide. --Dicentra, chief Sirius apologist From Ali at zymurgy.org Wed Jun 26 15:18:28 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:18:28 -0000 Subject: Flints and different editions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40387 In response to the recent thread re "descendant/ ancestor" p245 UK CoS. I have a paperback edition that was bought c. Jan 1999. The only wording is "First Published in Great Britain in 1998". I take this to mean that although it is a reprint it is the same "edition" as the original hardback published the previous July and therefore the wording is unchanged. In my copy Dumbledore says "descendant". I'm getting confused about flints and word changes in general, as I've found a few inconsistencies in the books, which as mine are all early editions, I have no idea if they've ever been corrected: (I am sad enough to have 2 copies of both PS and GoF but I've lent out the later editions of these, so I can't check them!) E.g. PoA when Harry & co come out of the tunnel after the shrieking shack scene, the order of who comes out of the tunnel is changed when Harry and Hermione re-witness the scene when using the time-turner: 1st time: "Sirius saw Snape up through the hole, then stood back for Harry and Hermione to pass. At last, all of them were out" p278 PoA UK hardback edition. 2nd time: ..."Then came Hermione then the unconscious Snape, drifting weirdly upwards. Next came Harry and Black" p298. GoF When Harry wakes up with his scar hurting, we know its Saturday as he gets the invitation from the Weasleys to be picked up on the Sunday, but answers the invite "See you five o'clock tomorrow" p38.GoF UK Hardback edition. However, on p 133 when he tells Ron & Hermione about his scar he says on "Sunday morning, I woke up with my scar hurting again". I know that neither of these "Flints" are important to the overall understanding of the books, but I do wonder if there is a list anywhere of errors ? and their corrections. I have looked on the Lexicon, and read the HPFGU essay on inconsistencies, but that obviously doesn't list every error. I know the First Edition of GoF is full of inconsistencies, some of which have definitely been altered, but as things change between editions we surely cannot know what "canon" actually is, and when certain "flints" are errors or perhaps well disguised clues. Ali From Ali at zymurgy.org Wed Jun 26 15:28:18 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 15:28:18 -0000 Subject: Half-blood Squibs? / Weasley cousin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40388 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mullsym255" wrote: > > And another thing that has always bothered me.. forgive me, because I lent my books to a friend, but I believe Molly or perhaps Ron makes reference to a cousin who was a squib and ends up being an > accountant? And that the family "doesn't speak of him". Why is this? > The Weasleys strike me as incredibly tolerant and accepting people > and Arthur obviously seems to have a fondness for muggles. So why > would they shun a member of the family who happened to be a squib? Or > is it that this cousin chose to exclude himself from the family? I think that there are many possible interpretations of this sentence, but heres one which would mean that Ron/JKR wasn't having a joke, but equally that the Weasleys weren't being intolerant:- If that cousin was actually a wizard but had done something considered to be bad (but not enough to go to Azkaban), they could have had their wand snapped in half, and forced to live as a muggle. The Weasley family seem not to speak about quite a few things, so isn't it possible that they are so ashamed of this cousin that they don't "speak of him" Ali From skelkins at attbi.com Wed Jun 26 16:30:56 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:30:56 -0000 Subject: Wormtail's Name In the Confession (WAS: Spying Game...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40389 Dicentra wrote: > Er, ma'am? Elkins ma'am? Not to undermine your theory or anything, > but Sirius becomes Padfoot so he can latch his jaws onto the wolf's > jugular, thereby protecting Harry et al. from the wolf. He doesn't > seem to have conscious control over reverting back into a human as > the dementors close in. You're right, of course. That's weird. Why did I misremember that? Is it because the dementors freak me out so much that I just assume that they turn you animal? Huh. Interesting. > So maybe you could amend this theory to read that Peter is the only > one who transforms for *selfish* reasons. Fair enough. That's the important part, anyway, really, as it's a moral equation. > Remus can't help it, Sirius is protecting the Trio, and Peter is > saving his own worthless little hide. It occurs to me that this rather supports your (was it your?) belief that Sirius' primary motivation is the protection of his fellow pack members, no? If one draws a parallel between the precise ways in which each of them becomes "bestial" in the Shack and the reasons underlying their eventual reversions to animal form, then you're left with an interesting suggestion as to where each of them is *weakest.* Peter's a self-interested coward. Sirius goes ballistic in defense of others. And Remus...er, well, Remus just can't help himself, don't you know. Of course, now I'm just waiting for Pip to come along and point out that Sirius is also protecting *himself,* so that actually his personal flaw is that he's just a Big Fat Coward. ;-) -- Elkins From carmenharms at yahoo.com Wed Jun 26 16:53:04 2002 From: carmenharms at yahoo.com (snazzzybird) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:53:04 -0000 Subject: Wormtail's Name In the Confession (WAS: Spying Game...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40390 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > Snazzzybird wrote: > > > In GoF when Barty Crouch Jr. is confessing under Veritaserum, he > > says that Voldemort came to his house to free him from his father's > > Imperius Curse ? in the arms of his servant, Wormtail. I may not > > have the wording exactly right; don't have the book in front of > > me ? but Crouch definitely refers to Pettigrew as "Wormtail". > > Welcome, Snazzzybird! (Is it really spelled with those three z's, or > am I just faithfully adhering to a typo?) > Thanks for the welcome! Yes, I have 3 z's, because the system told me that the 2-z name was already taken. I apologize to the 2-z snazzy for any confusion that may result from this. > > Snazzzybird suggested: > > > I think the reason is exactly as stated by Davewitley. JKR doesn't > > want Crouch to provide backup for Harry's story that Pettigrew is > > alive ? therefore Sirius is innocent. > > But JKR herself would already knows that Crouch is never going to get > that chance, wouldn't she? > > So. If the reason that nobody refers to Pettigrew by any name other > than "Wormtail" in the confession scene is really the author's desire > to keep Sirius' innocence a secret, then what we can deduce from that > is that JKR is concerned with one (or both) of two characters: > McGonagall and Winky. Those are only two characters in the scene > whose ignorance might require special authorial effort to maintain. > Every other character present for the confessional either already > knows that Pettigrew is guilty (Dumbledore, Harry), or will shortly > be forced to accept Sirius' freedom, if not necessarily his innocence > (Snape). > > -- Elkins Elkins, you make some excellent points, and you might well be exactly right. I love the elegance of Peter/Wormtail's name as an indicator of his humanity or lack of it. However, this bird has her theory clamped firmly in her beak, and is not quite ready to unclamp just yet. All right, Snape "will shortly be forced to accept Sirius' freedom, if not necessarily his innocence". I think something's coming, plotwise, that will *only* work if Snape believes -- or can appear to believe -- that Sirius is guilty of betraying James and Lily and killing a street full of Muggles. JKR is making Snape's knowledge of Sirius' innocence *plausibly deniable*. I'm an admitted JFK-Conspiracy Nut and a CIA Black-ops Watcher, and I also write fiction for fun -- so that's the way my mind works! Respectfully submitted, snazzzybird :-) From crana at ntlworld.com Wed Jun 26 17:10:16 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 18:10:16 +0100 Subject: Race (was Hagrid & others) - Superfluous Scenes (TBAY) - Math - Voldemort: to T or not to T? - Accountants References: Message-ID: <006c01c21d34$58357b00$2f3468d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40391 Darrin wrote: "Acknowledging that there are other races and cultures besides the white race is HARDLY a bad thing. So, if one of the Gryffindor players happens to be a black girl, big deal." I think the main issue was the introduction of Dean Thomas in the American edition, and the question whether this was just to introduce him or merely to add a token black person for Americans. I don't think anyone would quibble with acknowledging diversity or having a black Quidditch player - you're right, big deal. I think the question just arose from whether it was relevant to tell us that and very little else about her - "oh, well, she's only in there as a different colour, let's not bother with the character development" - or whether this was a sign that she would become more important and her character further developed later. ----- Dicentra in Theory Bay: "--Dicentra, who realizes that the can(n)ons aboard GARBAGE SCOW are highly subjective, but show me a can(n)on that isn't!" Maybe we should suggest to JKR's publishers that in future they perforate all the pages, so individual readers can, ahem, customise the books to their own tastes! :) ---------- Pam said: "And I don't think I'm the only Brit who feels a teeniest weeniest prickle when I hear or read 'math' rather than 'maths'!" A prickle, absolutely... this makes me very glad that HRH & co *don't* take Muggle subjects like, well, math :) and: "My credibility was restored when we all went to a JKR reading and, guess what, Mum was right all along (apart from Voldemort - for some obscure reason I was sure it was a silent t but I can't imagine why on earth I thought that)." I remember reading in an interview or something that it was meant to be with a silent T, however, I know in some of the talking books (can't remember about the film) the T is pronounced. Some of the theories about the derivations of his name mention its possible French origins - "Vol de Mort" (flight of death) - the French word "mort" is pronounced with a silent T. On the subject of pronunciation, how do you pronounce "Accio"? Like Ah-kio? Or, as Stephen Fry does in the talking books, Ak-sio (which sounds better to me?) ------ Tracey said: "And another thing that has always bothered me.. forgive me, because I lent my books to a friend, but I believe Molly or perhaps Ron makes reference to a cousin who was a squib and ends up being an accountant? And that the family "doesn't speak of him". Why is this? The Weasleys strike me as incredibly tolerant and accepting people and Arthur obviously seems to have a fondness for muggles. So why would they shun a member of the family who happened to be a squib? Or is it that this cousin chose to exclude himself from the family?" It wasn't because he was a Muggle - it was because he was an *accountant* :) (no disrespect to accountants, unless you work for PWC, I have heard their corporate song and ohhh dear) Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From skelkins at attbi.com Wed Jun 26 17:29:50 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:29:50 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic Power Boosts, Adrenaline-Inspired Power Boosts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40392 Aldrea wrote, in response to my suggestion that allegiance to Dark powers might imbue wizards with an increase in magical potency: > Yes, that makes good sense. I was afraid for a moment while I read > your post that Young Crouch's knowledge seemed a bit FLINT-y...I > mean, he only escaped his father on the night of the Quidditch > World Cup, correct? Yeah. And I don't even think that he really escaped then. Not for any length of time, anyway. He was stunned in the woods, wasn't he? In his confession, he speaks of Wormtail and Baby!Voldemort showing up at his father's door. I'd imagined that Crouch Sr. waited until the coast was clear and then retrieved his son, dragged him back home, and put him right back under that Imperius Curse. Or maybe this time he went for Imperius-plus-chains-and-semi-starvation, just to be on the safe side. At any rate, I don't get the impression that Crouch really escaped for *good* until Voldemort came to set him free. > That didn't leave him that much time to kidnap Moody, regain his > strength, learn the things he needs to know to play a convincing > Alastor Moody and a very knowledgeable DA teacher- plus contact > Voldie to set up that ever-so-intricate Triwizard Portkey Cup plot. No, it didn't, although I'm pretty sure that Voldemort came up with the ever-so-intricate plot all on his little lonesome. He speaks of it to Wormtail even before the QWC. And in his confession, Barty claims that Voldemort showed up at the door, Imperio'd his father, and *then* asked him if he was willing to serve. I don't get the impression that he had much to do with the actual planning of the scheme at all. (It does make you wonder, though, doesn't it, what Voldemort would have done if Crouch had said "no?" I mean, *was* there a Plan B?) > Soo...becoming a DE means a nice boost in some of your magicalness- > that's what you're saying, correct? It would account for a lot. Crouch's competence, Peter's competence, the seductive appeal of Dark magic to the ambitious. And it's certainly got genre precedent on its side. It also just occurred to me the other day that if we assume (as I think that we must) that the Dark Mark represents a powerful and profound form of mystical bond between Voldemort and his followers, then many of the events at the QWC can be viewed as partly a reflection of Voldemort's growing physicality, as well as his return to British shores. Why *was* Crouch only able to throw off his father's Imperius at the QWC, after so many years of being unable to resist it? For that matter, why had his ability to resist it started growing stronger in the very recent past? In his confession, he says: "'But Winky didn't know that I was growing stronger. I was starting to fight my father's Imperius Curse. There were times when I was almost myself again. There were brief periods when I seemed outside his control.'" That's interesting, isn't it? *Why?* Why was he growing stronger? It would seem more likely to me that one would grow less and less capable of resisting magical mental domination the longer one had spent under its sway. Especially after a decade or so, I wouldn't expect someone to be "growing stronger." Rather, I would expect for their will to be utterly degraded. Crouch makes it sound as if this was a fairly recent state of affairs, this new ability to resist the Curse, to be "almost himself again," if only for short periods of time. Could it be that this new state of affairs dated from exactly the same time as Voldemort's incorporation into his Evil Baby body? Perhaps the mere fact of Voldemort's gaining a physical presence was enough to strengthen his servant Barty's will. It does make you wonder, doesn't it? If the Dark Mark represents a direct link to Voldemort, then one wonders if whatever power the Death Eaters once derived from their unholy alliance with the Dark side (the magical mark of their corruption) might have started slowly to return to them over the course of GoF, just as the Dark Mark (the physical mark of their corruption) gradually returned to visible status. If so, then this might also explain why so many of the DEs felt emboldened enough to follow Lucius Malfoy in his little spot of Muggle torture at the World Cup. I've always been a bit bothered by that. I mean, these guys have been lying low for thirteen *years* at this point in the story. All evidence up to the QWC has pointed to the notion that the very *last* thing that Voldemort's old followers do is to go about making their allegiance known. Lucius Malfoy cautions his son against appearing hostile to Harry Potter, for example. We certainly never hear about any DE rallies going on. Drunk or no, the ex-DEs clearly haven't been in the habit of making their presence known in public places before the QWC. Just look at how shocked many of the people at the Cup are, to see men marching around in DE masks and hoods harrassing Muggles. Even before the Dark Mark appears, people are screaming and panicking. This is obviously neither an expected nor a usual event. So what happened? What happened to embolden the DEs so? Was it really just a matter of strong drink? Or was it, perhaps, due to their newly reactivated direct link with Dark forces, awakened by both Voldemort's newly corporated state and by the physical proximity of his recent return to British soil? > Well, what an intersting light this puts Ex-Death Eater Snape in. > Dear Potions-Master Snape...what did he do to get that title, eh? > Heh. My, my, my. I hadn't thought of that, myself. Aw, but Snape renounced his wicked ways. I'll bet you lose a lot of your special Dark magic superpowers when you do that. Your strength is as the strength of one, because your heart is pure. > I like your agruements on Pettigrew's talent. He's always described > as a poor wizard, yet he has definately shown himself as being a > formidable opponent. This could be that the Power Surge theory > stands true..or it could be because of Pettigrew's own nature. I > believe each of the times he shows some great magical powers is > when he is extremely threatened/stress/trying to save his own skin. That's an interesting notion. It does, as you point out, have precedent in the examples we are given of wizarding children, whose magical talent does seem to manifest itself most strongly when their emotions are strongly engaged. It also has some precedent in Neville, whose magic becomes far more powerful (if also far more wild and uncontrolled) when he is frightened or under stress. > So Sirius *corners* the terrified man...and as he is, as I > undoubtebly believe Sirius did do, threatened by the wizard > cornering him he just sort of goes BOOM with his wand. . . . > He hits the deck and, seizing the moment, goes rat (Ha, you can't > argue that the boom would have killed him if he hadn't perfectly > timed the Animagus transformation...Sirius didn't die, who was > standing close enough to Peter to call it "cornering" him.). Mmmmm. Oh, I don't just know about this. Much as it does always appeal to me to try to defend the little rat (and by the way, I do agree with you that Sirius was indeed "cornering" him with hostile intent. He's got a nasty temper, you know, that Sirius Black), he does take the time to deliver his "Lily and James, how COULD you" line, doesn't he? That just doesn't work for me somehow as the action of someone in a state of desperate terror firing off a spell in a moment of pure panic. That speaks to me of at least some degree of premeditation. As does the finger bit. Really, it's just far too elaborate a frame- up job for me to believe as an on-the-spot decision. It had to have been planned ahead of time, and if it was, then Peter must have had some reason to believe that he *would* be capable of pulling off a big enough "Go BOOM" spell to make others accept that he had been vaporized by it. > The Shrieking Shack- same thing. He was being threatened with > death/life in Azkaban...that would probably terrify some magic into > him. It certainly doesn't render him capable of wandless magic, though, does it? He isn't able to do a thing for himself at the point at which he is by far the most terrified: when he's actually about to be killed. It doesn't even seem to occur to him to try. He just grovels and weeps. And his actual escape strikes me as far more bloodlessly competent than panicked. Whether or not his framing of Sirius required perfect timing, his escape at the end of PoA *certainly* did. His window of opportunity opens, and he acts. It's split-second. And it's not just an explosive BOOM spell either. He chooses his targets rationally. He hits Ron, because Ron is standing the closest to him and is an immediate threat. He hits Crookshanks because Crookshanks is running towards him and so is the next most immediate threat. That leaves him a clear field to transform, so long as he does so before Harry and Hermione can fire off any spells, and that's precisely what he does. It doesn't seem much like an act of panic to me. > And also, this could be why Voldemort is always > torturing/berating/yelling at Wormtail- he's trying to terrify some > magic into the man, and at the same time being all I'm-An-Evil- > Overlord-Who-Doesn't-Give-A-Damn-About-Anyone's-Feelings. But we never see Voldemort actually tormenting him right *before* he's called upon to do any magic, do we? He certainly is in quite the state in the graveyard, but it seems to me to be more anticipatory terror than the after-effects of yet another Suffering Minion Moment. We don't, for example, get treated to any Minion Abuse scenes right before he is called upon to perform Voldemort's rebirthing ritual, which I think that we probably would if Peter really required abuse to perform up to snuff magically. > I'm not trying to shoot down this Power Boost stuff(it actually > fits pretty well in the series)...just tyring to make sure it can > stand on two legs. Sure. I personally think that "Allegiance to Dark forces gives you power" fits in quite well with everything we've seen in canon, as well as what has been implied by the way in which people talk about Dark wizardry. It does seem to be viewed as a *temptation.* For it to be an effective temptation, then it must give you something pretty *good,* don't you think? -- Elkins From ronale7 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 26 17:37:35 2002 From: ronale7 at yahoo.com (Ronale Stevens) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:37:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: ancestor or descendant>? In-Reply-To: <1025102692.1142.83718.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020626173735.38602.qmail@web20806.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40393 Eloise wrote: >Does anyone have a US edition which says 'descendent'? < Yes, I do. I originally bought CS in the U.S. paperback edition. On p. 332 it says "ancestor." I bought this in 2001. Then this spring (2002) I bought the U.S. hardover edition from Amazon.com. On p.332 it reads "descendant." Neither book tells me which printing it is, only when the first printing was run. Thus the only clues I have are that the paperback says its first printing was in September 2000, while the hardcover says its first Amercian edition was printed in June of 1999. While that makes it sound as though the paperback is the newest, without knowing which printing it is we can't be sure. Still, descendant seems to make much more sense tha "ancestor." --Ronale7 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From dicentra at xmission.com Wed Jun 26 18:16:54 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 18:16:54 -0000 Subject: Half-blood Squibs? / Weasley cousin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40394 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mullsym255" wrote: > > > > > And another thing that has always bothered me.. forgive me, because > I > > lent my books to a friend, but I believe Molly or perhaps Ron makes > > reference to a cousin who was a squib and ends up being an > > accountant? And that the family "doesn't speak of him". Why is > this? > > Naama replies: I always saw this as > a bit of sly humour regarding accountants, certainly not reflecting > any basic intolerance in the Weasleys. The other edge of the humor is the parallel with the Dursleys: they don't talk about Lily, either, because of her embarrassing "condition." --Dicentra From ronale7 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 26 19:02:07 2002 From: ronale7 at yahoo.com (ronale7) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:02:07 -0000 Subject: Grey Lady Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40395 This spring my husband and I watched a PBS special about the World of Harry Potter. It dealt only with Book 1 and spent several minutes talking about the Grey Lady. I can find no reference in Book 1 or the other books about this ghost. There is a passage (chapter 12)where Harry and Ron pass the ghost of a tall witch, but she is not identified. Can anyone help me out on this? Where is the grey Lady identified as such? --Ronale7 From editor at texas.net Wed Jun 26 19:06:57 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:06:57 -0500 Subject: How much does Snape know? was Wormtail's Name In the Confession (WAS: Spying Game...) References: Message-ID: <005c01c21d44$a5677e40$b17763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40396 The snazzzzzzzzy one speaketh: All right, Snape "will shortly be forced to accept Sirius' freedom, if not necessarily his innocence". I think something's coming, plotwise, that will *only* work if Snape believes -- or can appear to believe -- that Sirius is guilty of betraying James and Lily and killing a street full of Muggles. JKR is making Snape's knowledge of Sirius' innocence *plausibly deniable*. Me now: Are you saying that as of the end of GoF, Snape has not been filled in on all the details? Because Snape's reaction to Sirius at the end of GoF seems to me to be purely hatred, purely personal. (And part of the hatred likely due to the fact that Sirius *is* innocent; how *dare* he be, and force Snape to have to admit anything even remotely positive about him! Another part of the hatred likely being that Snape realizes that Sirius has just heard *all* that was said in front of Fudge.) The clincher, for me, was the handshake--unwilling as it is, it was an acknowledgement. Snape has accepted Dumbledore's ruling on this, albeit unwillingly, and although he will doubtless be on the lookout for any betrayals from Sirius' direction (the exact same thing can be said of Sirius, about Snape, for Sirius now knows that Snape was a Death Eater). Snape's action, if he did not believe Sirius innocent, would probably have been to attack immediately, to defend Dumbledore or possibly Harry. He does nothing of the sort, just stands there and hates him. This is not to say that the mutual suspicion will not cause major problems in the future....but it will, I believe, be grounded in their doubts of the other's character, rather than any sincere doubt of the events of the past. This is especially likely if anything should happen to Dumbledore, either temporarily or permanently, as his is the guiding will making them run, if very grudgingly, in tandem. --Amandageist, premier Snapologist, who is devoutly wishing (not for the first time) that JKR had selected names that did *not* begin with the same letter for her most ambiguous and interesting character and one of his runners-up.... From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 26 19:44:04 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:44:04 -0000 Subject: How much does Snape know? was Wormtail's Name In the Confession (WAS: Spying Game...) In-Reply-To: <005c01c21d44$a5677e40$b17763d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40397 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda Geist" wrote: > The clincher, for me, was the handshake--unwilling as it is, it was an > acknowledgement. Snape has accepted Dumbledore's ruling on this, albeit > unwillingly, and although he will doubtless be on the lookout for any > betrayals from Sirius' direction (the exact same thing can be said of > Sirius, about Snape, for Sirius now knows that Snape was a Death Eater). > Snape's action, if he did not believe Sirius innocent, would probably have > been to attack immediately, to defend Dumbledore or possibly Harry. He does > nothing of the sort, just stands there and hates him. I agree, by that point Snape must've been filled in on the details. (I personally believe that Dumbledore must've filled him in shortly after the end of PoA.) After all, the forced handshake is the prelude to Dumbledore including Sirius in all his secret anti-Voldemort plans. There's no way Snape would just stand there and go along with it if he didn't believe that Sirius was loyal. Too many lives, including Snape's own, depend on Sirius not running straight to Voldemort as soon as he's out of Dumbledore's sight. Snape may still think that Sirius is a reckless, arrogant bastard who got away with attempted murder twenty years ago, but he no longer thinks Sirius is a traitor. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From kkearney at students.miami.edu Wed Jun 26 18:08:56 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 18:08:56 -0000 Subject: pronunciation of "accio" In-Reply-To: <006c01c21d34$58357b00$2f3468d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40398 Rosie asked: > On the subject of pronunciation, how do you pronounce "Accio"? Like Ah-kio? Or, as Stephen Fry does in the talking books, Ak-sio (which sounds better to me?) I seem to remember a pronunciation guide somewhere pronounced it ah-sio. However, I always said ach-io, based on the Latin origins (ecclesiastical Latin, at any rate; I'm not sure how it would be pronounced in Classical Latin). - Corinth, who hopes she isn't straying too far off topic by replying to this one :) From hsowaw2001 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Jun 26 19:38:34 2002 From: hsowaw2001 at yahoo.co.uk (hsowaw2001) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:38:34 -0000 Subject: Grey Lady In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40399 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ronale7" wrote: Where is the grey Lady identified as such? > The Grey Lady is the Ravenclaw house ghost, but little is mentioned of her at all, in comparison to the other Ghosts. We learn much about them and their personalities at Harry's sorting. NHN is pompous, and tells us a little about himself. FF is very jovial, perhaps a little naive. BB is, in a word, shocking. We find out from the outset, that he is covered in blood, but, no explanation is given. 'The Grey Lady' is never named, or refered to by any of the other characters, although, she is seen and described by JKR. Perhaps, her story is significant, and that JKR has, as is usually the case, something up her sleeve with regards to Hogwarts' most mysterious resident. The Lexicon has a little paragraph detailing what is known about her, and how we know this with such little concrete information. Hope this helps, and isn't just a ramble in the dark... -Jasmine From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Wed Jun 26 20:27:31 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:27:31 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: pronunciation of "accio" Message-ID: <84.2a694d1a.2a4b7db3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40400 I checked the Pronunciation Guide at Harrypotter.com and it's pronounced "asio" like ah-s eeo...hope that makes sense :) Pronunciation Guide: http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/books/pronunciation/play.htm *Chelsea* From cindysphynx at comcast.net Wed Jun 26 21:21:01 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 21:21:01 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic Power Boosts, Cruciatus and Imperius (Some TBAY) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40401 Elkins wrote (about Crouch Jr. perhaps refusing Voldemort's request for assistance): > (It does make you wonder, though, doesn't it, what Voldemort would > have done if Crouch had said "no?" I mean, *was* there a Plan B?) Plan B? Well, let's see. Crouch Jr. might say something like, "You know, I've been couped up under this cloak a long time and I was thinking of maybe taking some time *off*, if that's all right with you, Voldemort." Mmm, nah. Not unless Crouch Jr. was hoping to do a dance with the Cruciatus Curse, figuring it might help clear his mind or something. Hey, here's a totally wacky thought, though. Maybe, just maybe, the Cruciatus Curse makes wizards *more* powerfully magical than they would otherwise be. That's why Voldemort dispenses these Cruciatus curses to his own DEs. That's why the DEs tolerate this sort of abuse. And that's why Avery volunteers for that Cruciatus Curse in the graveyard. Oh, sure, it will sting a bit at first, but it is *so* totally worth it, because now Avery is stronger. Avery isn't a SYCOPHANT; he's an overachiever! That's the real reason Cruciatus is an Unforgiveable -- it makes the victim *stronger* in the long haul. So let's see. Who else gets a taste of Cruciatus? Wormtail and Cedric. Cedric surely displays some power after Krum hit him with the Cruciatus Curse -- Cedric almost reaches the Cup first and teams up with Harry to stun the spider. The only wizards who received the Cruciatus Curse and didn't get stronger were Bertha and the Longbottoms. And that's only because they received *way* too much of it. They *overdosed* on Cruciatus, that's what happened, poor things. And then there's Harry. Harry, who received two Cruciatus Curses and became able to dodge spells, who didn't report that his scar was hurting after the second Cruciatus Curse despite Voldemort's close proximity and murderous conduct. In fact, Harry was unable even to resist being bent forward at the waist after one Cruciatus Curse, but was able to *throw off Imperius* after the second. Hey, it's a thought! Elkins: > Why *was* Crouch only able to throw off his father's Imperius at >the QWC, after so many years of being unable to resist it? For >that matter, why had his ability to resist it started growing >stronger in the very recent past? In his confession, he says: > > "'But Winky didn't know that I was growing stronger. I was >starting to fight my father's Imperius Curse. There were times >when I was almost myself again. There were brief periods when I >seemed outside his control.'" > > That's interesting, isn't it? *Why?* Why was he growing >stronger? I have an idea. It is certainly reasonable to assume that Crouch Jr. was growing stronger. Maybe, maybe. But how about an alternative theory? A theory that explains all of the pesky, FLINT-y problems with the Imperius Curse? How about if the Imperius Curse is only as strong as the wizard casting it? How about if the Imperius Curse is a classic struggle of wills, a clash of power between the controller and victim. After all, Mulciber specialized in the Imperius Curse. If all Imperius Curses are the same, why have someone specialize in it? The answer, I say, is that everyone knows the Imperius Curse can be thrown off by powerful wizards. So you don't want any old hack casting Imperius on wizards; you want to send in your "A" team -- Mulciber, whose Imperius Curses seem to stick. Oh, *now* we're rolling! If the Imperius Curse is only as strong as the wizard casting it, then it makes perfect sense for Crouch/Moody to teach Harry to fight it. Crouch/Moody knows his own Imperius is *child's play* compared to Voldemort's Imperius, so there's no harm in teaching Harry to fight it. It also explains why the DEs in the Graveyard stop laughing it up when they see Harry throw of Voldemort's curse. This is the first real hard evidence they've seen that Harry is stronger than Voldemort. Oh, that Voldemort has a barrel of excuses for his other defeats, doesn't he? Ancient magic, "Phoenix tears, I forgot!" Not this time, though. This time, the DEs saw with their own eyes that Voldemort's Imperius Curse isn't strong enough to control Harry. And that's important! As far as Crouch Jr. goes, he didn't really get stronger during all those years under the cloak, under this theory. Crouch *Sr.* was getting *weaker*, that's what was going on. Crouch Sr. was getting more and more discouraged by his failure to win become Minister of Magic, becoming bitter from being shunted aside and forced to work with the likes of Ludo Bagman. And Crouch Sr. was just plain growing older. All of that made young Crouch *relatively* stronger compared with his father, I think, not stronger overall. Cindy (who thinks Pip and her MAGIC DISHWASHER will *not* like the idea that Cruciatus makes a wizard stronger) From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed Jun 26 21:44:57 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 21:44:57 -0000 Subject: Fighting Imperius (Was: Re: Dark Magic Power Boosts, Cruciatus and Imperius ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40402 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > But how about an alternative theory? A theory that explains all of > the pesky, FLINT-y problems with the Imperius Curse? How about if > the Imperius Curse is only as strong as the wizard casting it? How > about if the Imperius Curse is a classic struggle of wills, a clash > of power between the controller and victim. > > After all, Mulciber specialized in the Imperius Curse. If all > Imperius Curses are the same, why have someone specialize in it? > > The answer, I say, is that everyone knows the Imperius Curse can be > thrown off by powerful wizards. Actually, I'm not sure throwing off Imperius is a matter of being a powerful wizard; I think it could be a matter of being a strong-minded person. In which case, it would still be a struggle for power between caster and victim, but not a *magical* struggle. In theory, a sufficiently willful Muggle should be able to resist Imperius. Mulciber, presumably, was a particularly strong-willed sonufabitch. This would explain why Harry was able to throw off Voldemort's Imperius in the graveyard, even though Voldemort is (as of now) still the more powerful wizard. And it would still fit the theory that Crouch Sr. grew weaker with time, making Barty relatively stronger until he could break free. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From naama_gat at hotmail.com Wed Jun 26 22:04:13 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:04:13 -0000 Subject: How much does Snape know? was Wormtail's Name In the Confession (WAS: Spying Game...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40403 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda Geist" wrote: > > > The clincher, for me, was the handshake--unwilling as it is, it was > an > > acknowledgement. Snape has accepted Dumbledore's ruling on this, > albeit > > unwillingly, and although he will doubtless be on the lookout for > any > > betrayals from Sirius' direction (the exact same thing can be said > of > > Sirius, about Snape, for Sirius now knows that Snape was a Death > Eater). > > Snape's action, if he did not believe Sirius innocent, would > probably have > > been to attack immediately, to defend Dumbledore or possibly Harry. > He does > > nothing of the sort, just stands there and hates him. > > I agree, by that point Snape must've been filled in on the details. > (I personally believe that Dumbledore must've filled him in shortly > after the end of PoA.) After all, the forced handshake is the prelude > to Dumbledore including Sirius in all his secret anti-Voldemort > plans. There's no way Snape would just stand there and go along with > it if he didn't believe that Sirius was loyal. Too many lives, > including Snape's own, depend on Sirius not running straight to > Voldemort as soon as he's out of Dumbledore's sight. Snape may still > think that Sirius is a reckless, arrogant bastard who got away with > attempted murder twenty years ago, but he no longer thinks Sirius is a > traitor. > Hmmm. But if Snape knows and accepts (i.e., believes) that Sirius is innocent - and therefore an ally - why was he so shocked that Sirius was there? When Sirius transforms to human form, the look on Snape's face "was one of mingled fury and horror." He snarls, "Him! What is he doing here?". Again, if Snape knows that Sirius is not a traitor, why the fury and horror? I would expect "a look of loathing" (which Snape does well) and "So, you're here too, are you?!". Distaste, but definitely not horror or fury. Also, from Dumbledore's answer, it appears that Dumbledore also thinks that Snape is questioning Sirius' allegiance: "He is here at my invitation, as are you, Severus. I trust you both." On a side note, that's an interesting way to put it, isn't it? He is making it impossible for Snape to further question his confidence in Sirius, by linking Snape's and Sirius' trustworthiness - as I trust you, I trust him. (Which I take to mean, "I have just as much basis for trusting him as I have in trusting you.") I think that Snape does accept Dumbledore's ruling on this - as the handshake proves - but I think that this acceptance happened then and there, with that "I trust you both." Besides the evidence from this scene, it makes sense to me that Dumbledore wouldn't fill Snape in following PoA. Look at it this way - Snape had just "accidentally" spilled the beans on Lupin, and in doing so he went against Dumbledore's direct wishes. Dumbledore may have not wanted to give Snape details on Sirius which might, if leaked, endanger Sirius' life. Snape was so determined to not believe that Sirius is innocent (think of his manic outburst after Sirius' escape), that Dumbledore may have felt that Snape would not believe him, no matter what he'd tell him - that Snape would see this as Dumbledore believing a bunch of Confunded kids. He may have decided that there is a risk that Snape will take action against Sirius. Naama From skelkins at attbi.com Wed Jun 26 22:28:24 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:28:24 -0000 Subject: Sexuality in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40404 I've divided this response up into two separate ones, as I think that the issues of homoeroticism, sadism, and how Voldemort feels about women are probably best separated from my analysis of how authorial decisions regarding word choice and phrasing effect how we read the Graveyard scene. This post deals with the first body of issues; its follow-up deals with the second question. Dicentra wrote: > There's no doubt in my mind that Voldemort is getting off on > something here. I just don't think the erotic imagery is > necessarily pointing to homoeroticism, per se. No. I didn't really mean to imply that. I do see strong homoerotic overtones to Riddle and Harry's encounter in the Chamber, but Voldemort's behavior in the graveyard strikes me as more purely sadistic. The way that Riddle is depicted in the Chamber does speak to me of a certain degree of homoeroticism. JKR seems to be going out of her way to describe him as behaving in a self-consciously flirtatious and seductive manner. She also focuses on details, like those long fingers, that carry with them rather sensual connotations. One might just as easily, however, read Riddle's interest in Harry as narcissistic, rather than as homoerotic. Harry does somewhat resemble him, after all, as did James, in whom he also seems to have paid an unusual degree of physical attention. By the time of the confrontation in the chamber, Riddle already knows that his fate is inextricably intertwined with Harry's. The "double" aspect of their relationship is not merely a literary device; it is one that the characters themselves -- Riddle included -- comment upon. So the possibility that what we are seeing there is pure and simple narcissism also seems quite convincing to me. Riddle is a megalomaniac, after all. It's an inherently narcissistic position. As for Voldemort in the graveyard... Dicentra: > As for whether his excitement is genuinely sexual or only > metaphorically so, I'd prefer not to guess. Because if it's the > former, it buries the needle on the EWWWW scale, as far as I'm > concerned. Far too EWWW, I agree. And none of our business besides. My goodness, even fictional characters deserve *some* privacy, don't they? Just for the record, though, I don't really believe that Voldemort has sexuality in any normal human sense of the term. After all, he's supposed to have lost much of his humanity in the process of seeking immortality. I tend to assume that sexuality is one of those things that you leave behind once you start heading down that path. The particular nature of his excitement in the graveyard is, however, *physical.* It has a somatic element. He is not merely mentally and emotionally engaged. He is breathing heavily, heavily enough for his nostrils to be "dilating with excitement," and he's really not been doing anything strenuous enough to account for that. So I'd say that he is certainly physically aroused. Whether this means that his excitement is actually "sexual" in any technical or, er, genital sense of the term, though, strikes me as pretty moot, honestly. It's close enough. Dicentra: > I think Voldemort, as a predator, is getting off on killing (ever > hear the noises a cat makes when a bird flies nearby?). I remember stumbling downstairs one morning only to find one of my cats, a poor little orphan kitty who never learned to kill properly, busily engaged in the very last stages of torturing an unfortunate mouse to death. She was purring. Loudly. And also doing that cheek rub thing that cats do. You know, the thing that they do when they're really awfully *pleased* with you and want to mark you as their very own? The cheek rub that we tend (no matter how often we are told that it is actually a territorial behavior) to read as a sign of deep feline affection? She was doing that to this poor suffering half-dead mouse. Oh, yeah. It was pretty disturbing all right. I just love cats, but it did make me feel some sympathy for those people who find them unsettling. Getting back to Voldemort, though, I do agree with you that it's predatory, but I think that it's rather worse than just getting off on killing. He doesn't just like killing. He likes causing suffering, and not merely in those he deems "worthy opponents" either. He does take some time to play with poor old Frank Bryce, after all, who is old and lame -- and a Muggle to boot. I mean, really. The man hardly offers much in the way of *sport,* does he? But Voldemort still insists on revealing himself before killing him, just so that he can get a kick out of that look of terror on the man's face. He's not merely a predator. He's a sadist. And as you point out, sadism is at heart about power. Dicentra: > However, Harry is his Ultimate Foe, and getting rid of him means > acheiving the power he's been looking for all his life. (This also > applies to Riddle's reaction to Harry.) And since power is the > ultimate aphrodisiac, it's no wonder he gets all hot and bothered. No. It isn't a surprise, I agree. He's certainly more engaged than he is while tormenting easy prey like Avery and Pettigrew. In the absence of anything really exciting, he'll entertain himself with the likes of Bryce, but I agree with you that the main reason that he is so particularly keyed up over Harry is a question of power. Which is also the reason that I think he is more interested in men than in women. Dicentra: > He's probably too dehumanized to care about the sex of his victim. Here is where we disagree. 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. Whether the teenaged Riddle preferred boys to girls as a matter of regular old preference or not (and I am most certainly *not* trying to equate homosexuality with misogyny here), I think that he certainly seems *disinterested* in girls. His emphasis on how very *boring* he found dealing with Ginny is obviously primarily meant to wound Harry, but I also find myself believing it. He really doesn't seem terribly interested in Ginny. Even his comments upon learning the origin of Harry's protection speak to me of a profound dismissal of women as a general class. (Oh, yes. Mother love. Should have thought of that, hadn't I? Oh, well, if *that's* all it was...) Nor, as Voldemort, does he give the impression of having paid nearly as much attention to Lily's death as he had to James' (more fool he). His "die the way your father died" gloat to Harry in the graveyard does seem to imply that he actually paid some attention to James. I never receive that impression from him about Lily. Even the much-touted "hesitation," which some have read as evidence of reluctance, I tend to read as pure and simple contempt. His particular means of ordering her away ("stand aside, girl") is dismissive. She simply doesn't register to him as a person of any importance at all. He can't even be *bothered* to kill her, until she refuses to get out of the way of the target who really does interest him: her son. His tone when talking about Bertha Jorkins is similarly dismissive. You would think that torturing his way through the poor woman's Memory Charm would have been *just* the sort of thing that he would have enjoyed, but he doesn't really speak of it with all that much in the way of relish. He doesn't *reminisce,* so to speak. He seems to have found her fairly uninteresting. There do not seem to be many women in his circle of followers. 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. The overall impression that I am left with is that of somebody who simply isn't particularly interested in women, not even as the victims of his otherwise undeniable sadism. As prey go, he seems to regard them as marginally better than nothing at all, and I just can't avoid the suspicion that this is because he doesn't consider them powerful. Just as he regards Harry as a more satisfying victim than Wormtail, so he regards men as more satisfying victims than women. My take, anyway. -- Elkins (who would like to reassure Amandageist that she too was a late-bloomer, and who also tends to feel that too much icky girl stuff can really get in the way of a rousing good yarn) From skelkins at attbi.com Wed Jun 26 22:34:24 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:34:24 -0000 Subject: Perversion In the Graveyard (WAS: Sexuality in HP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40405 I suggested that there are a number of places in the graveyard sequence of GoF where the author seems to have deliberately chosen to use words with sexual, sensual, or erotic connotations. Dicentra wrote: > On the other hand, the problem with sexualized language is that it's > not specialized language. No, it isn't. But if enough words with romantic, erotic or sexual connotations are used in seemingly incongruous contexts (for Voldemort to be "caressing" *anything* strikes me as fairly incongruous, really, because the word itself connotes gentleness and tenderness, neither of which are qualities that Voldemort possesses), then I think that they do create a cumulative effect on the reader. In the case of the graveyard sequence, that cumulative effect is to make the scene seem, as so many people have said, "creepy." I would go a bit further, actually. I think that its effect is to make the scene strike readers as not merely creepy, but as actively perverse. We do, I think, tend to read what happens to Harry in the graveyard as something above and beyond a terrible ordeal. We read it as a *violation.* A violation, and a profound loss of innocence. As far as I can tell, this is by far the most common reading of the end of GoF. It is the majority reading, the "normative reading," if you will. Different interpretations are certainly possible, but I've not myself ever heard them articulated. I therefore suspect that they are exceptionally rare. I think that the majority of readers interprets these events in such a manner for a reason. The author *directs* us towards that reading. It does not happen by accident, nor simply because the bare- bones facts of what happens to Harry at the end of GoF are intrinsically horrific. They certainly *are* horrific. Witnessing the cold-blooded murder of a peer, being helpless and tortured and gloated over, being forced to serve as the unwilling aid to your enemy's resurrection...all of these things are indeed "violating," and they can indeed be read as constituting a "loss of innocence." But a bare-bones recounting of this series of events would not have conveyed the idea nearly as *reliably,* nor as universally, nor with the same degree of emotional power. The reading of graveyard-as- violation is conveyed not merely through the events of the plot, but also through the specific words that the author uses to describe them. This brings us back to Rochelle's original Elephant In the Drawing Room: the reading of the graveyard sequence as a metaphoric rape. I had been trying to avoid stealing Rochelle's Big Canon for this one, since I was under the impression that she had planned on coming back to this topic --- it was, after all, her pet elephant. It's been a while now, though, so I'll just go for it. Apologies to Rochelle if I'm in any way stepping on her toes here. Okay. Rochelle cited JKR's use of the word "penetrate" as evidence for her reading of the taking of Harry's blood as a metaphoric rape. She then commented that there was a lot more, but that she wasn't ready to go into it yet. The really *big* signifier of the rape metaphor, to my mind, isn't "penetrated." As others have pointed out, there aren't really all that many other words that JKR could have chosen to use here. "Nicked," "pricked" (problematic in and of itself), and "cut" all leap to my mind immediately as other possibilities -- a thesaurus might suggest far more -- but none of these word choices would have been quite as accurate or appropriate. The author's use of the verb "to penetrate" would therefore not strike me as necessarily all that significant if it were standing all by itself. In combination with the precise phrasing of the ritual, however, it *does* seem significant to me because the precise phrasing of the ritual sets forth the rape metaphor quite blatantly. "Blood of the enemy, forcibly taken..." I don't see how this could help but suggest rape to a native English speaker. In English-speaking cultures, to "take by force" is a common euphemism for rape. Alley wrote: > To a certain extent I agree but I also think that sexual undertones > pervade our lives and literature and we have created our language > and the connotations attached to our language accordingly. And one > should be aware of the connotations of the language you're using > even if that's not your primary intention. Yes, precisely. Whether JKR was consciously aware of it at the time or not, using the phrase "forcibly taken" was a significant authorial choice. Personally, I suspect that it was a conscious one. But whether it was conscious or unconscious on the author's part is really not terribly relevant. It has the same *effect* either way. Nor, I would argue, does the question of whether or not the *reader* notices the analogy on any conscious level matter all that much. Whether the reader notices it consciously or not, the choice of phrase will nonetheless have a specific effect on the vast majority of the scene's readers. "Forcibly taken" connotes rape, which in turn connotes violation, loss of innocence, and not merely sexuality but a *perversion* of sexuality. The sense of perversion is important, IMO. I don't think that the graveyard sequence is considered so "Dark" merely because it is violent, or because the protagonist remains helpless throughout so much of it (although both of these things certainly do contribute to its scariness). I also think that people tend to react so strongly to this sequence because it comes across as perverse, as an offense, a *Wrongness.* It is depicted as Abomination. I believe that this sense of the circumstances surrounding Voldemort's rebirth as a "Wrongness," a fundamental and profound violation of natural law, is also strongly reinforced by the role that the shades of the dead play in opposing Voldemort at the end and aiding Harry in his escape. The text gives us a perfectly "rational" magical explanation for why this happens: Priori Incantatem. What the *subtext* says to me, though, is this: "What has just happened here is Abomination. In the face of such offense, the dead themselves rise up in protest. In the face of such offense, even the silent dead are moved to speak." Harry's heroism in recovering Cedric's body for proper disposal -- standing in stark contrast to Voldemort's use of his father's bones -- also comes into play here. Conceptions of the proper treatment of and respect for the dead are powerful and deeply-rooted cultural constructs. They have weight and history; they touch on some very ancient (and very fundamental) concepts of propriety and taboo. Now, if as an author what you want (either consciously or subconsciously) is to encourage your readers to an interpretation of a scene as depicting a fundamental Wrongness -- violation, perversion, abomination, taboo -- then one way to do that is to strike at all of the hot button issues of your readership, and then to *twist* those issues, to pervert them. Violating cultural taboos is what leads to that sense of instinctive revulsion that gets translated to an emotional response of: "Oh, this is just so *wrong.*" Here are some issues that immediately leap to my mind as good candidates for this treatment. Sexuality. Religion. The Family. Treatment of the dead. The Graveyard sequence hits every one of them. 1) Sexuality. Sexuality is a big one. As this thread has amply demonstrated, people have strong emotional reactions to *any* discussion of sexuality. It's a serious hot button issue. So does Graveyard violate our conceptions of what constitutes "normal" or "acceptable" sexuality? Yes. It draws the rape analogy. It implies that Voldemort is experiencing some form of physical arousal or excitement from torturing a fourteen-year-old boy. It uses words with sensual or erotic connotations in places where they seem inappropriate and disturbing. (It is not that a wand is "phallic" *per se* that makes Voldemort's "caressing" it "gently" so disturbing to me, by the way. Rather, it is that in Voldemort's hands, a wand is an implement of murder. For a character to be described as "gently caressing" a yonic weapon, or even a starkly technological one -- like the proverbial Big Red Button -- would have had very much the same effect on me. 'Cause you know, sometimes even a donut can be a cigar.) 2) Religion. Religion is just as hot a button as sex, if not an even hotter one. On this list, for example, we tend to get even more nervous about discussions that raise the issue of religion than we do about those that raise the issue of sexuality. Matters of faith and of religion are important to people, very important. So does Graveyard violate or pervert or "twist" religious concepts? Is it in any sense *blasphemous?* Yes. I think that it is that, as well. Dicentra objected to my description of the Death Eaters' apparent ecstacy as sexual by pointing out that the same quasi-sexual language is also used to describe states of religious ecstacy. Alley also commented on this fact. True enough. Leaving aside the entire question of whether the DEs' initially ecstatic response to seeing Voldemort returned is sexual or mystical, however -- or even whether there is all that significant a difference between these two states -- there are plenty of other uses of religious imagery and language in the graveyard sequence. The type of obeisance that Voldemort expects from his followers, for example, is quasi-religious. Generally speaking, it is those rulers who have laid claims to a divine source of authority as well as a civil one who have historically received hem-kissing as a formalized gesture of submission. Religious imagery pervades this entire sequence. Voldemort's cauldron of rebirth, particularly in the context of a novel entitled _Goblet of Fire,_ appears as a kind of Dark Grail. It is a vessel of resurrection, but of resurrection through parricide and murder, rebirth through the sacrifice of others, rather than the sacrifice of the self. His immersion in baby form is a perversion of the sacrament of baptism, and his use of Harry's blood is a perversion of the sacrament of communion. Voldemort demands confessional from his followers and doles out penance, but he also describes himself as unforgiving ("I do not forgive."). The rites of confessional are therefore perverted: atonement is rejected as impossible, thereby rendering confession itself empty, meaningless. All of Voldemort's "faithful servant"ing has strong Biblical echoes. Also, and this may just be me, Pettigrew's depiction in the Graveyard sequence has always struck me as strongly reminiscent of a figure from an ancient mystery cult. Hooded, balding, physically weak, symbolically self-castrated, he is granted a singular status of intimacy with his master. As first Voldemort's nursemaid and then his valet, he tends to his *physical* needs: feeds him, carries him, dresses him. We never see any of the other DEs come into direct physical contact with Voldemort. They show their obeisance by kissing the hems of his robes, not his hand or even his feet. Pettigrew reminds me of a temple attendent, one of the castrated devotees permitted to enter sacred spaces which remain barred to uncut men. He plays the eunuch acolyte to Voldemort's hierophant. There is also literal sacrilege going on in this scene. This graveyard is not merely a family plot; it is also a churchyard and thus consecrated ground. The very first sentence describing the setting gives us this detail: "They were standing instead in a dark and overgrown graveyard; the black outline of a small church was visible beyond a large yew tree to their right." This is almost certainly ground that was consecrated in a very specific Christian context, a context in which both the disturbance of the dead and the performance of malign ("Dark") magical rituals are anathema. It is therefore not only blasphemous, but actively sacrilegious. 3) The Family. The family is a hot-button issue as well, although not nearly so much so as sex and religion. Nonetheless, messing with people's conceptions of appropriate familial relations often reaps a strong emotional response. Graveyard messes with the family. It messes with it in a big way. Voldemort speaks to his followers as a reproachful parent to erring children. His response to their arrival is: "But look, Harry! My *true* family returns...." Voldemort is, of course, a parricide, and his "true family" is treacherous, disloyal, and scared to death of him. They hold no genuine affection for him at all, nor does he treat them with any hint of parental love. He is their "father," but this is a conception of paternity that reflects *only* its disciplinarian aspects -- Father as Punisher, Father as Critic, Father as Enforcer, Father as Judge. Divorced from the loving aspects of the paternal role, this is a perversion of our conception of proper familial relations, and the fact that it is coming from somebody who brags about having himself committed parricide only makes it that much worse. 4) Proper Treatment of the Dead. I covered this one above. This is an ancient taboo, and JKR does not hesitate to make use of it. Exuming ones father's bones for the purpose of using them in a self-serving magical ritual is Just Not Okay, and the fact that we are meant to read the treatment of the dead as important is then further reinforced by Cedric's request to have his own body brought back to his parents for proper disposal. So, yeah. Graveyard *is* creepy. It's disturbing. It's Dark. And I think that it is all those things for reasons that go a bit deeper than the simple fact that it portrays violent events, or that bad things happen to Harry in it. It's a very powerful scene indeed, and much of its power, IMO, derives from its deliberate perversions of concepts and institutions that we consider sacred. And yes, BTW. I worry about Harry's emotional condition at this point in the storyline too. -- Elkins From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Wed Jun 26 22:47:38 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:47:38 -0000 Subject: Scabbers at Hagrid's: (was Finding Voldemort) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40406 Elkins wrote: > I have always believed that, no matter what Sirius implies in the > Shrieking Shack, Pettigrew would never have returned to Voldemort had > his masquerade not been uncovered in PoA. He returns only because he > believes that he is now a hunted rat, and that Voldemort's protection > is therefore likely his only chance for survival or safety. Me too, and this reminds me: we had a thread a few days ago asking why Pettigrew hid in Hagrid's hut, and I meant to contribute. Somebody pointed out that it's a dead spot on the Marauder's Map, so the only issue is, why hang around at Hogwarts? I had always assumed that at this point all PP is trying to do is get away from Sirius. He is hoping - expecting? - that the MOM will catch up with Sirius and he will be Kissed. Then he can miraculously have survived, and go back to Ron. Crookshanks is still a problem but in fact PP never really seems to have had any difficulty evading him. Once he is exposed, as Elkins says, everything changes. He is a target for both sides. Of the DEs, only Voldemort himself knows that his defeat is not Pettigrew's fault. > > But how did he manage to find Voldemort so quickly? > > David touched on this issue a few days ago, when he wrote (in regard > to the Spying Game Theory's claim that a number of the DEs really are > loyal to Voldemort): > MAGIC DISHWASHERS all gone a bit quiet, hm? David, who agrees with Elkins that public expressions of loyalty, however futile, are way more important to Voldemort than winning the war From nplyon at yahoo.com Wed Jun 26 22:44:42 2002 From: nplyon at yahoo.com (nplyon) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:44:42 -0000 Subject: French Derivatives in HP Character Names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40407 [In reference to the pronunciation of words in the book, Pam said:] >(apart from Voldemort - for some obscure reason I was sure it was a > silent t but I can't imagine why on earth I thought that). I too thought it was a silent t, although I know why I thought so. I majored in French in college and I assumed the t was silent because I was assigning French phonetic rules to the word. What struck me the first time I read the series was that the name Voldemort has three distinct French elements in it. It's obvious to me that JKR speaks at least some French, as the structure of the sentences one of the Beauxbatons students speaks during the QWC scene (pg. 123 in the US hardcover edition "Ou est Madame Maxime? Nous l'avons perdue--") indicates that she did not simply pick up a French dictionary and find the French equivalents for the words she wanted to use (or maybe someone else wrote the sentences for her...but I digress). Voldemort has three distinct parts to it: Vol- meaning theft or flight, de- meaning, roughly, of, and mort- meaning death. So, in French, his name means something like "Theft of Death" or "Flight of Death". The same is true for Draco's last name: mal- meaning bad, and foy- meaning faith, although mal is actually an adverb, not an adjective, and the letter y at the end of "foy" as opposed to the letter i at the end (foi) is a spelling device of old French. So his name is Draco Badfaith. Lastly, Beauxbatons: beaux- meaning beautiful and batons- meaning stick, rod, wand. I know that JKR uses a lot of Latin in her novels but my only familiarity with it is through my knowledge of French. I'd be interested to read what anyone else might have to contribute to this thread. ~Nicole, who was delighted to learn French so that she could understand what was being said in books like Jane Eyre and, more recently, HP. :) From rvotaw at i-55.com Wed Jun 26 23:12:58 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 18:12:58 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Grandpa Voldemort References: Message-ID: <00e201c21d67$038e7560$809ecdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 40408 Ronale7 writes: >I'm a firm believer in Voldemort being Harry's grandfather. I think >Tom Riddle sired James Potter. My scenario goes like this: Voldemort >wanted to kill at least James because he had heard a prediction that >a son of James would one day be his downfall. If he could kill >Harry, and James to prevent him siring other sons, then he could >avoid his fate. I call this the fatal child theory (see my post >38784). It does explain why Voldemort and Harry look somehat alike >and why Voldemort wouldn't care whether Lily died. How does this explain that Riddle is James' father and not Lily? I agree with the scenario that Voldemort/Riddle killed James and tried to kill Harry to end that bloodline. However, I just can't picture Voldemort being a softie who stands there and repeatedly tells Lily to "Stand aside." That's on more than one occasion based on the wording, possibly as many as four times he tells her to "stand aside" before killing her. Isn't that an awfully big waste of time? Why spend all that time telling her to get out of the way? Why not just kill her and be done with it as he killed James? It just doesn't fit Voldemort's mold to simply not care if she died or not and take the time out to try to get her to move away from Harry. Unless he knew that something would happen to protect Harry if she died protecting him, which I don't think he did. I'm also still confused why it was Lily's sacrifice that protected Harry from Quirrell/Voldemort when James also died to protect him. Both of them, actually. Richelle From suzchiles at pobox.com Wed Jun 26 23:21:40 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 16:21:40 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Grandpa Voldemort In-Reply-To: <00e201c21d67$038e7560$809ecdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40409 Richelle asked: > Unless he > knew that something would happen to protect Harry if she died protecting > him, which I don't think he did. I'm also still confused why it > was Lily's > sacrifice that protected Harry from Quirrell/Voldemort when James > also died > to protect him. Both of them, actually. > I don't have any children myself, but my closest friend has a son, aged 10 months. The connection between the two is amazing; they seem completely in sync and their thoughts joined. I certainly know that in the relationship I have with my own mother, this is true. Even when I moved 2000 miles away from my parents, whenever I was in trouble, my mother has called me on the phone and wanted to know what the problem was. It's a connection that's been in place for 52 years, my lifetime and is still there. This anecdotal evidence, to me, bolsters the concept that his mother's love and her sacrifice that gave Harry his protection. This in now way denigrates the love that Harry's father had, nor does it make his sacrifice for his wife and child any less profound or meaningful. But the connection between a mother and child, especially at that very young age, is some pretty special. Zo From nplyon at yahoo.com Wed Jun 26 21:57:12 2002 From: nplyon at yahoo.com (Nicole P. Lyon) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 14:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore/Hagrid Relationship Message-ID: <20020626215712.36704.qmail@web20908.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40410 > I think Dumbledore has a big blind spot about >Hagrid, with Tom >Riddle's name on it. And that can't be a good thing. > >Caroline > > Here's a thought: perhaps there's more to the whole Dumbledore/Hagrid relationship than has been revealed at this point. After all, in SS/PS, Professor McGonagall asks Dumbledore if he thinks it's wise to trust Hagrid to get Harry from the Potter's house and transport him to the Dursleys, to which Dumbledore replies that he would trust Hagrid with his life. Why? I know that I have a whole lot of history with the friends that I trust with my life. I certainly wouldn't go making that claim about anyone in general. While I do think that Dumbledore turns a blind eye to certains of Hagrid's traits (his drinking comes to mind), I feel that there's something more in their history than has been revealed as of yet. ~Nicole, who is a charter member of the SIDS club. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 27 00:00:40 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 00:00:40 -0000 Subject: How much does Snape know? was Wormtail's Name In the Confession (WAS: Spying Game...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40411 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naamagatus" wrote: > Hmmm. But if Snape knows and accepts (i.e., believes) that Sirius is > innocent - and therefore an ally - why was he so shocked that Sirius > was there? > When Sirius transforms to human form, the look on Snape's face "was > one of mingled fury and horror." He snarls, "Him! What is he doing > here?". Again, if Snape knows that Sirius is not a traitor, why the > fury and horror? Well, first of all, I don't think Snape knew about Sirius being a dog Animagus. When I suggested that Dumbledore filled Snape in after PoA, I meant that he filled Snape in about the Secret-keeper switch and Pettigrew being Wormtail the rat Animagus. He may or may not have mentioned that Sirius was an Animagus too, but GoF seems to make it pretty clear that Snape didn't know about Padfoot. As for Snape's expression of "fury and horror" -- well, Snape just discovered the arrogant bastard who nearly murdered him all those years ago is now a member of Dumbledore's inner circle. And what's more, Snape has just revealed a major secret about himself -- a secret he almost certainly would not have revealed so openly if he'd known that Sirius was listening in. I'd say fury and horror are exactly what I would expect from Snape here. > Also, from Dumbledore's answer, it appears that Dumbledore also > thinks that Snape is questioning Sirius' allegiance: "He is here at > my invitation, as are you, Severus. I trust you both." I think Dumbledore was phrasing it as a reminder of something Snape already knew rather than as a brand new revelation. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Jun 27 01:05:23 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 01:05:23 -0000 Subject: The Triwizard Portkey (WAS: Killing Harry, Smart!Voldemort ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40412 Cindy wrote: > Nah, I'm sticking with my prior view of why the Cup is round-trip. > Crouch Jr. blew it. The Cup was always set to be a round-trip from > the center of the maze. Otherwise, the winner would have to grab > the Cup and battle his or her way past these life-threatening > obstacles back to the entrance of the maze to claim the thousand > galleons, which doesn't make sense. But that would still make it only one-way, surely? The Cup is already *in* the center of the maze. It was, I agree, probably originally set to carry the first person who touched it out of the maze and back to the entrance, where they would then presumably be lauded as the winner of the Tournament and presented with their thousand galleons. But that's still just a one-way ticket. It's not round-trip. It takes you from the center of the maze to its periphery -- and that's it. So Crouch Jr. didn't just mess with the Portkey's original destination. He also, whether intentionally or not, changed it from a one-way Portkey, designed only to carry its user from the center of the maze to its periphery, to a duel-use Portkey, designed *first* to carry its user to the graveyard and *then* back to the periphery of the maze. The question then becomes whether this was intentional, or a Great Big Fat Mistake on arrogant young Barty's part. Cindy suggests the latter: > Crouch Jr., being talented but rather new to the art of programming > Portkeys, didn't know about this round trip feature, or more > likely, didn't care. 'Cause Crouch Jr. had every reason to think > that the only thing that might be returning via the Cup was Harry's > corpse. So rather than substituting one destination for another, Crouch tampered with the Portkey by adding a *new* destination and ranking it higher in the "queue" than its original one, which he never bothered to delete and which was therefore still active, although relegated to a secondary function? That works. It means that the first time that the Portkey is touched, it will follow its new orders ("take user to graveyard"), while the second time it is touched, it reverts to its original programming ("take user to periphery of maze.") If that's the case, then I assume that had the Cup been touched a third time, it would have done nothing at all, as it would then have run through all of its "orders." After fulfilling its second (and original) function, it reverted to an inactive object, just like the old boot at the beginning of GoF did. That's certainly a possibility, although I think that I still prefer the idea that the plan was originally to *use* the Portkey's secondary destination, either to descend on Hogwarts or simply to send Harry's corpse back as a nice little message for the wizarding world. The former is Bangier, to be sure, but I find the latter far more likely. Even if we assume Stupid!Voldemort, rather than Pip's Scheming! Voldemort, I still don't think that he'd make such an amazingly disastrous error as to attempt a strike on the Triwizard audience when there is no way to Disapparate from Hogwarts grounds. Even Overconfident "Oops, I forgot!" Voldemort isn't quite so daft, I don't think, as to consider it a good idea to try pitting his thirty some-odd Death Eaters against the cream of the wizarding world, element of surprise or no element of surprise. It would make sense if they could appear, fire off a bunch of curses, and then Disapparate, but since they wouldn't be able to do that, I can't see it as a feasible plan. Although you know, maybe Voldemort had just forgotten about that aspect of Hogwarts? Heaven knows that everybody else does. "You can't Disapparate from Hogwarts? Oops. I forgot!" In which case Harry really saved some unfortunate Death Eater a whole lot of grief, didn't he? Because I'm sure that *one* of those guys would have been willing to point out to Voldemort the flaw in his cunning plan. I'm equally certain that whoever did so would have suffered for it. Evil Overlords just *hate* being told about flaws in their cunning plans. -- Elkins, who thinks that once somebody breaks that Memory Charm that Voldemort's got blocking all of his happy childhood memories of flowers and puppy dogs and all the maternal hugs and kisses from that nice Muggle lady at the orphanage, things are really going to *change* in the Potterverse. From alina at distantplace.net Thu Jun 27 01:35:18 2002 From: alina at distantplace.net (Arealin) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 01:35:18 -0000 Subject: French Derivatives in HP Character Names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40413 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "nplyon" wrote: > It's obvious to me that JKR speaks > at least some French, as the structure of the sentences one of the > Beauxbatons students speaks during the QWC scene (pg. 123 in the US > hardcover edition "Ou est Madame Maxime? Nous l'avons perdue--") > indicates that she did not simply pick up a French dictionary and > find the French equivalents for the words she wanted to use (or maybe > someone else wrote the sentences for her...but I digress). Reply: I believe Rowling was a french teacher at one point, isn't that right? Alina. From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Thu Jun 27 03:01:49 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 03:01:49 -0000 Subject: The Triwizard Portkey In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40414 Elkins says: > ... I still prefer > the idea that the plan was originally to *use* the Portkey's > secondary destination, either to descend on Hogwarts or simply to > send Harry's corpse back as a nice little message for the wizarding > world. The former is Bangier, to be sure, but I find the latter far > more likely. > Even if we assume Stupid!Voldemort, rather than Pip's Scheming! > Voldemort, I still don't think that he'd make such an amazingly > disastrous error as to attempt a strike on the Triwizard audience > when there is no way to Disapparate from Hogwarts grounds..... > Although you know, maybe Voldemort had just forgotten about that > aspect of Hogwarts? Heaven knows that everybody else does. > "You can't Disapparate from Hogwarts? Oops. I forgot!" I'm not sure how the portkey'd Triwizard Cup would have been used to transport Harry's dead body back to Hogwarts. We never see portkeys transporting inanimate objects; it appears they only work when a live (magical?) human touches them. So, I think someone would have had to *bring* Harry's body back, as Harry did with Cedric's body. And that would be quite risky for whatever Death Eater did it. As for the second theory, that Voldemort planned to use the Triwizard Cup portket to launch an attack at Hogwarts, perhaps the Cup now serves as a back-and-forth transport between the graveyard and Hogwarts. The Cup was initially in a different location (the maze), before being activated. But, once activated, perhaps each touch would switch it between the graveyard and Hogwarts. So, the DEs could have planned to use it to attack Hogwarts, and then used it a second time to escape. However, I tend to think Voldemort just hadn't considered that the Cup could be used again after it brought Harry to the graveyard, and never planned to use the Cup to transport anyone or anything back to Hogwarts. "The Cup still works as a portkey to Hogwarts? Oops, I forgot!" -- Judy, who is feeling stupid lately, and likes to think of Voldemort as being even stupider From rvotaw at i-55.com Thu Jun 27 03:19:32 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:19:32 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Perversion In the Graveyard/ Cruciatus Curse References: Message-ID: <008401c21d89$75719be0$08a1cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 40415 Elkins writes >No, it isn't. But if enough words with romantic, erotic or sexual >connotations are used in seemingly incongruous contexts (for >Voldemort to be "caressing" *anything* strikes me as fairly >incongruous, really, because the word itself connotes gentleness >and tenderness, neither of which are qualities that Voldemort >possesses), then I think that they do create a cumulative effect on >the reader. In the case of the graveyard sequence, that cumulative >effect is to make the scene seem, as so many people have said, >"creepy." > >I would go a bit further, actually. I think that its effect is to >make the scene strike readers as not merely creepy, but as actively >perverse. We do, I think, tend to read what happens to Harry in the >graveyard as something above and beyond a terrible ordeal. We read it >as a *violation.* A violation, and a profound loss of innocence. I agree that whole graveyard scene was written such that you end up with the feeling of Harry being violated. A sort of mental/emotional rape. And when you come out of the graveyard through the portkey, he is violated again--he trusted Moody/Crouch. Then the whole scene after that, telling Dumbledore and Sirius all of the painful details was reliving the whole violation, but yet a sort of counseling session (post-rape so to speak). Then you've got him whisked off the the hospital ward, I suppose he needed to recover from the Cruciatus curse amongst other things, but still it seemed to be more of a mental and emotional need for sleep--pure, dreamless sleep. I don't know about the rest of you, but at the end of this segment of GoF I was so emotionally and mentally involved in the story I almost felt like I'd been violated--robbed of innocence. Come to think of it, I did go straight to bed after reading it the first time, didn't feel like doing much else. Cindy writes: >Hey, here's a totally wacky thought, though. Maybe, just maybe, the >Cruciatus Curse makes wizards *more* powerfully magical than they >would otherwise be. That's why Voldemort dispenses these Cruciatus >curses to his own DEs. That's why the DEs tolerate this sort of >abuse. And that's why Avery volunteers for that Cruciatus Curse in >the graveyard. Oh, sure, it will sting a bit at first, but it is >*so* totally worth it, because now Avery is stronger. Avery isn't a >SYCOPHANT; he's an overachiever! I've just returned from church tonight, and I was reminded of this message in something the minister said. He said that pain unites the body. The entire body, mind, etc. Which using that point of view would explain that the Cruciatus curse could sort of focus the body and mind perhaps on recovering, and then remain united and focused, thus stronger. Richelle From btk6y at virginia.edu Thu Jun 27 03:39:38 2002 From: btk6y at virginia.edu (btk6y) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 03:39:38 -0000 Subject: Snape's "sudden movement" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40416 > name. In the graveyard scene he passes a few of the Death Eaters > without comment and stops to talk to others. Snape could have been > one that he passed without comment. The only problem with this is that you can't apparate or disapparate on Hogwarts grounds. Bobby From divaclv at aol.com Thu Jun 27 04:34:17 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 04:34:17 -0000 Subject: Snape's "sudden movement" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40417 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "alisonb2210" wrote: > I have a theory regarding Professor Snape's 'sudden movement' in GoF. > (British paperback edition, chapter 36, page 613 The Parting of the > Ways) > > When Harry starts shouting the names of the Death Eaters he saw in > the graveyard, Snape makes a 'sudden movement' but recovers himself > quickly when Harry looks at him. > As I recall, Snape's reaction happens right after Harry names Lucius Malfoy. I think this is the telling part of the moment. Now as to WHAT precicely it's telling, well, only Jo knows for sure. My current theory (based on one part instinct and two parts pulling it out of my--hey-HEY!) is that Snape, for reasons we can at the moment only speculate at, believes (or wants to believe) Lucius' story that he (Lucius) was aiding Voldemort against his will. When Lucius' name is the first one Harry gives, Snape's initial reaction is disbelief, perhaps an inclination to contradict the accusation, but in the presence of the others he thinks the better of it. ~Christi From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Thu Jun 27 04:59:38 2002 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (arcum42) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 04:59:38 -0000 Subject: Ethnicity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40418 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "A. Vulgarweed" wrote: > Nik wrote: > > Dean Thomas and Angelina Johnson, though, I *would* need to be told > they were black if that was important to the story, because their > names don't convey that information (Johnson is a very common name > among both whites and blacks here). I mean, Hannah Abbot or Susan > Bones or Morag McDougal or Malcolm Baddock or whoever could be > black also for all I know--I don't think it says anywhere that > they're _not_. So in a way the reader is free to imagine Hogwarts > as pasty-white or as diverse as they wish: we're not given much > information on _everybody's_ ethnicity, and plenty of minor > characters get no physical description at all. I'd agree for the most part, bust as far as Morag McDougal goes, with a name like that, I'd assume they'd be Scottish unless told otherwise... >From : 'Morag - This is said to be the Gaelic equivalent to Sarah (from a Hebrew word "Sarai" meaning "Queen" or "Princess"), though some books suggest that it is from the Gaelic "mor" meaning "great" and "ag" or "og" meaning small. So the combination is "great young one". It was largely unknown outside of Scotland until the 20th century but has become increasingly popular. When it was dangerous to use Bonnie Prince Charlie's real name after Culloden in 1746, his followers sometimes used the name Morag to refer to him.' And he's clearly from Clan McDougall: (From the Gaelic "dubh gall" means "dark stranger") http://www.rampantscotland.com/clans/blclanmacdougall.htm He could be black and Scottish, but I tend to think that would be unusual enough to have been mentioned, especially with both a Gaelic first and last name... --Arcum From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Thu Jun 27 06:13:15 2002 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (arcum42) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 06:13:15 -0000 Subject: Grandpa Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40419 Ronale7 writes: > I'm a firm believer in Voldemort being Harry's grandfather. I > think Tom Riddle sired James Potter. My scenario goes like this: > Voldemort wanted to kill at least James because he had heard a > prediction that a son of James would one day be his downfall. If > he could kill Harry, and James to prevent him siring other sons, > then he could avoid his fate. I call this the fatal child theory > (see my post 38784). It does explain why Voldemort and Harry look > somehat alike and why Voldemort wouldn't care whether Lily died. > With Voldemort, I could definately see his intention of killing Harry and James as being about bloodlines and a prophesy, but I don't see him as neccessarily related. I could see, for example, there being a prophesy about the heir of Slytherin being defeated by the heirs of the other three houses, and Voldemort systematically killing anyone decended from Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, and Ravenclaw (presuming Harry is decended from one of the founders, such as Gryffindor, through his father). --Arcum From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Thu Jun 27 08:23:40 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:23:40 -0000 Subject: Finding Voldemort/Cruciatus Curse makes you stronger In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40420 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" wrote: > > > Elkins wrote: > > But how did he manage to find Voldemort so quickly? > > > > David touched on this issue a few days ago, when he wrote (in > > regard to the Spying Game Theory's claim that a number of the DEs > >really are loyal to Voldemort): > > > MAGIC DISHWASHERS all gone a bit quiet, hm? > > David, who agrees with Elkins that public expressions of loyalty, > however futile, are way more important to Voldemort than winning the war > Well, the response to The Spying Game II was so relatively quiet that I assumed everyone had either gone into the MAGIC DISHWASHER and come out happily with shiny new can(n)ons, or alternatively, had been beaten to death by the sheer weight of quotation. :-) How did Pettigrew find Voldemort so quickly? No one was stopping him finding Voldemort, that's why. ANY of the DE's could have physically reached Voldemort - the problem was that the faithful DE's were all known, had their descriptions circulated amongst Aurors, and would have been watched every inch of the way to (and in) Albania. Faithful DE's couldn't 'find' Voldemort because it would have meant letting Dumbledore know *exactly* where Voldemort was. Voldemort can't be killed - that doesn't mean he can't be captured. Or petrified. Bad for the DE's, and something they'd try and avoid at all costs; but short of the for-all-time solution that Dumbledore is aiming for, since a captured Voldemort can escape, and a petrified Voldemort can be un-petrified. Hence the MAGIC DISHWASHER. The DE's who weren't known-and-blown were also the one's Second In Command Lucius Malfoy (or 'M', if you prefer) didn't trust an inch - they might well have decided that turning Voldemort in was a *really* good way to display loyalty to the new regime. Nope, let's not send them. Yes, there were attempts to find and reach Voldemort in the few months after post-Baby!Harry chaos (the Lestranges) - which is when it became very obvious indeed that suspected DE's were being closely watched. However, not closely enough for the Longbottoms - in fact, would the Lestranges have *been* arrested if they hadn't decided to torture the Longbottoms to the point of insanity? Or would they simply have been followed, in the hope that their search led the MoM staight to Voldemort? Lestranges managed to 'talk their way out of Azkaban' (p. 457 GoF, UK hardback), huh? Or were allowed out because they were reckoned as Most Likely DE's To Lead Us Straight To Voldemort? Pettigrew? No descriptions circulating to MoM agents of Pettigrew (why should there be? - he's dead.) Dumbledore hasn't told those sources of his mentioned in CoS to look out for a rat/person of the Pettigrew persuasion either. Or if he HAS, the instructions are of the 'allowed to pass' variety. MAGIC DISHWASHER means Pettigrew was 'allowed' to reach Voldemort. The DE's don't realise this because they think they know how Pettigrew could get there safely - everyone thinks he's dead. As poor Bertha Jorkins shows, it is possible to travel to Albania, possible to get quite close to Voldemort - and possible to end up dead. What kills her is sticking her nose into the deadly game that's being played out in Albania - something that was not her business: "But why, Bertha," said Dumbledore sadly, ... "why did you have to follow him in the first place?" (GoF p. 520 UK hardback) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Cindy writes: > who thinks Pip and her MAGIC DISHWASHER will *not* like the > idea that Cruciatus makes a wizard stronger Funny you should think that ;-) So, you're working on Thick-As-A-Brick Voldemort now? Oops!-I-forgot- Cruciatus-makes-a-wizard-stronger Voldemort? I'm-in-the-middle-of-a- 'to-the-death'-duel,-so-let's-just-blast-Harry-twice-with-a-spell- that-actually-makes-him-stronger Voldemort? Pleeeease! Oops!-I-forgot!Voldemort is one thing, but 'Cruciatus as Mars Bar'[helps you work, rest and play] is Dark-Magic-Resurrections-will- give-you-brain-damage,-so-please-don't-try-this-at-home-kiddies! Voldemort. [grin] And all the other people in the Wizarding World who so foolishly made Cruciatus an Unforgivable! Goodness, it was just because they don't want the WW full of incredibly powerful wizards - silly me, for thinking otherwise. [Even Bigger Grin] Naah. Any 'strengthening' effect Cruciatius has is probably because it really concentrates your mind wonderfully on the problem of 'how to avoid getting a second blast'. Pip (who does like the idea that the strength of Imperius depends on the strength of the wizard casting it - good one) Squeak. From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Thu Jun 27 08:53:53 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:53:53 -0000 Subject: TBAY: The Safe House WAS Wormtail's Name In the Confession In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40421 snazzzybird writes: > I'm an admitted JFK-Conspiracy Nut and a CIA Black-ops Watcher, and > I also write fiction for fun -- so that's the way my mind works! > You are welcome to visit The Safe House (located near the beach in Theory Bay) at any time. This comfortable detached residence is open to any and all spies or conspiracy theorists, and is available for debriefings of agents (on any side; double or triple agents welcomed). There is a MAGIC DISHWASHER available for use, but adherence to every single one of its tenents is not required; guests do not have to use it at all if they wish to wash their own dishes. Agatha Christie enthusiasts will also find a ready welcome as her various 'secret world conspiracy' novels make Dame Agatha an honorary resident. Tea and biscuits are available at all times, non-British users will find coffee and donuts in the second cupboard on the left in the kitchen. The kitchen may be used to prepare meals, but guests will have to bring their own food. Overnight stays are possible. The house- elf is a free employee and will not do any cooking; but all cleaning will be done as if by magic. She will also listen to every word you say. Please leave two empty milk bottles on the front step outside if debriefing, so the rest of us know not to enter. The exceptionally large, and somewhat wild garden is often visited by a Grey Wolf. The garden has several comfortable chairs and benches, conveniently located near microphones. Surveillance equipment is also available, and it should be possible to use the playback facilities to see or hear anything happening in any part of the Bay. Visitors are welcome to discuss anything they wish, but please be aware that anything you say WILL be heard by the house-elf, recorded on the large number of hidden microphones and may possibly be videotaped as well. Playback facilities are excellent, and tape copies may be taken by visitors. However, it is not possible for visitors to find ALL the copies, so please do not try. Pip, Housekeeper for The Safe House Squeak! From Ali at zymurgy.org Thu Jun 27 09:35:40 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 09:35:40 -0000 Subject: Grandpa Voldemort In-Reply-To: <00e201c21d67$038e7560$809ecdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40422 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Richelle Votaw" wrote: I'm also still confused why it was Lily's sacrifice that protected Harry from Quirrell/Voldemort when James also died to protect him. Both of them, actually. > Richelle To me the difference is that James would have died anyway, but Lily ONLY died because she was trying to protect Harry. At the point when James shouts to Lily he says that he's going to try and hold Voldemort off, what choices did he actually have? I suppose he could have dissapparated, but other than run away, he would had to have tried to fight Voldemort,hide, or just be killed. The major difference between the two appears (although we actually have no detailed canon evidence on the James/Voldemort encounter), is that Voldemort gave Lily an opportunity to survive, but not James. Ali From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Thu Jun 27 09:43:16 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 09:43:16 -0000 Subject: Watched DEs (was Finding Voldemort) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40423 Pip wrote: > ANY of the DE's could have physically reached Voldemort - the problem > was that the faithful DE's were all known, had their descriptions > circulated amongst Aurors, and would have been watched every inch of > the way to (and in) Albania. Faithful DE's couldn't 'find' Voldemort > because it would have meant letting Dumbledore know *exactly* where > Voldemort was. > I'm not sure whether you are assuming that Dumbledore is working in conjunction with the MOM here. It seems pretty plain to me that the MOM relaxed pretty soon after Voldemort's disappearance: that's why the Longbottom incident was so shocking, because they'd all gone into VE-Day mode. Yes, the aurors were active for a while, but I don't buy that all the suspected ex-DEs were being watched by the MOM for the whole period until we enter the canon years. Fudge's 'he can't be' sounds completely sincere to me. Dumbledore is a different matter. He has understood that the threat has not gone, only gone away. The problem here is one of resources: can he follow them all? In other spheres his powers (despite claims of omniscience) do not actually extend to knowing where others are (though I can see it could be argued that he seems merely human because 90% of his attention is on Malfoy, McNair, etc). If the WW has a way to follow (e.g.) Lucius Malfoy as he apparates rapidly round half the Mediterranean and then to a few Greek tourist destinations (perhaps including Corfu, swimming distance from the Albanian coast) and then takes in a couple of visits to Albania, I personally will hand Cornelius Fudge a yellow flag for his complete incompetence in failing to recapture Sirius Black. > > Yes, there were attempts to find and reach Voldemort in the few > months after post-Baby!Harry chaos (the Lestranges) - which is when > it became very obvious indeed that suspected DE's were being closely > watched. However, not closely enough for the Longbottoms - in fact, > would the Lestranges have *been* arrested if they hadn't decided to > torture the Longbottoms to the point of insanity? Or would they > simply have been followed, in the hope that their search led the MoM > staight to Voldemort? I question that it is 'obvious indeed that suspected DE's were being closely watched'. If anything, the Longbottom incident shows how little they were watched. Why is there doubt about the extent of Crouch's participation? How *long* did the watchers stand and allow the Longbottoms to be tortured? IIRC the perpetrators got away and had to be recaptured. I can believe that for a few months *after* this that the MOM revamped their surveillance programme, having realised their mistake. But as nothing happened, they would have wound it down again, IMO. > > Lestranges managed to 'talk their way out of Azkaban' (p. 457 GoF, UK > hardback), huh? Or were allowed out because they were reckoned as > Most Likely DE's To Lead Us Straight To Voldemort? > In which case, on the spying theory, the assessment was sadly mistaken, as they seem to have been the only ones incompetent enough *not* to be able to do so (unless the whole Longbottom thing was an elaborate blind). As I understand the theory, any *other* DE could have found Voldemort in a trice, if only the MOM had been astute enough to let them believe they were not watched, or they could escape their watchers. Incidentally I said earlier that I think Voldemort considers futile expressions of loyalty more important than winning. I realised that that's not quite what I think: more that he is sure of winning (he sees it as his destiny), and will, in a manner reminisecnt of the Second Coming, eventually reward those followers who confessed him, not those who manoeuvred for him. David, a firm believer in the cock-up theory of history (I mean, look at Suez for what happens when conspiracy is attemted) From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Thu Jun 27 10:03:57 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:03:57 -0000 Subject: The Triwizard Portkey In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40424 Elkins: > Even > Overconfident "Oops, I forgot!" Voldemort isn't quite so daft, I > don't think, as to consider it a good idea to try pitting his thirty > some-odd Death Eaters against the cream of the wizarding world, > element of surprise or no element of surprise. It would make sense > if they could appear, fire off a bunch of curses, and then > Disapparate, but since they wouldn't be able to do that, I can't see > it as a feasible plan. > And the thought of thirty DEs all landing in a jumble on the Quidditch pitch as they try to hold on to the portkey seriously endangered my reputation for sanity in the office. Perhaps Voldemort thought that the Hogwarts staff would die laughing? Thank you, Elkins, for making my day. David From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Thu Jun 27 10:31:02 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:31:02 -0000 Subject: It's descendent, not ancestor; Omniscience In-Reply-To: <11d.131aaf5b.2a4b2286@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40425 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 David found the interview via Mike Gray's search engine of JK Rowling interviews, which is at www.aberforthsgoat.net (If only I had remembered that URL, I could have saved us all a lot of trouble! I wanted to search for JKR's quote, but forgot that Mike's site ends with .net, not .com.) 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. My feeling is that Dumbledore wouldn't have told Harry that Voldemort is the last descendent of Slytherin, unless Dumbledore was sure that was true. In other words, I think Dumbledore has some sort of privileged knowledge that tells him Slytherin has no other descendents. This brings us back to my claim that Dumbledore is "omniscient." Really, omniscient is too strong a term; I don't think he knows *everything*. However, I think he has some information about the future, that allows him to take risks which would otherwise be reckless. (Either that, or he is one heck of a mellow guy.) -- Judy From Zarleycat at aol.com Thu Jun 27 10:46:04 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:46:04 -0000 Subject: How much does Snape know? was Wormtail's Name In the Confession (WAS: Spying Game...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40426 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > As for Snape's expression of "fury and horror" -- well, Snape just > discovered the arrogant bastard who nearly murdered him all those > years ago is now a member of Dumbledore's inner circle. And what's > more, Snape has just revealed a major secret about himself -- a > secret he almost certainly would not have revealed so openly if he'd > known that Sirius was listening in. I'd say fury and horror are > exactly what I would expect from Snape here. > > I think Dumbledore was phrasing it as a reminder of something Snape > already knew rather than as a brand new revelation. Many fine points were raised by this discussion. I'm going to throw in my two cents, too. I think that Dumbledore is smart enough to use unexpected situations to further his cause. He didn't know that the end of the Tournament and its aftermath with Crouch, Jr. would lead to a gathering in the Hospital room. Now Dumbledore realizes that he needs to marshall his forces while the Ministry dithers, and also that two of the people he wishes to rely on are in the room and hate each other. He's got to get them to agree to be, at the very least, unwilling allies. What does he do? He requests that Sirius reveal himself. By doing so he's saying to Sirius "Snape can be trusted to know what your Animagus form is and he won't betray that secret." And he's saying to Snape, "The big black dog is Sirius' best method of escaping detection by the Ministry and I trust that you will keep that secret." Dumbledore clearly hopes that the two will put aside their mutual abhorence to work for the greater good. They seem to be grudgingly willing to do that for the moment. And maybe they will be entrusted with tasks that won't require they work closely together, although, I for one, am hoping for some deliciously snarky, snarly exchanges between the two in future books. Marianne From anne_n_remus at yahoo.com Thu Jun 27 00:16:24 2002 From: anne_n_remus at yahoo.com (Anne_n_Remus) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:16:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Grey Lady In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020627001624.82950.qmail@web21508.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40427 ronale7 wrote: I can find no reference in Book 1 or the other books about this ghost. There is a passage (chapter 12)where Harry and Ron pass the ghost of a tall witch, but she is not identified. Can anyone help me out on this? Where is the grey Lady identified as such? Hi... Ok I have both of my copies of SS/PS sitting in front of me... In SS: Page:210 chapter 12 "They passed the ghost of a tall witch gliding in the opposite directin, but saw no one else." PS: Same chapter Page:154 Well, That ghost is in fact the Grey Lady. I believe JKR said in an Interveiw ( I found on the HPGalleries< I'd send the link but the site is down and nothing works :( ) That in fact that was the Grey Lady that they passed. Well, I hope that helps. I know, I know... I was of no help... Bye. Anne_n_Remus : Gryffindor(And Proud of it!) "I was hoping that Neville would assist me with the stage of the operation and I am sure he will preform it admirably." Professor Remus J. Lupin from Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban I fear... No Beer... "I hate it when he does that." Obi-Wan Kenobi from Star Wars episode II Attack of the Clones --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Thu Jun 27 04:13:34 2002 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 04:13:34 -0000 Subject: The Triwizard Portkey (WAS: Killing Harry, Smart!Voldemort ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40428 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > Cindy wrote: > > > Nah, I'm sticking with my prior view of why the Cup is round- trip. > > Crouch Jr. blew it. The Cup was always set to be a round-trip from > > the center of the maze. Otherwise, the winner would have to grab > > the Cup and battle his or her way past these life-threatening > > obstacles back to the entrance of the maze to claim the thousand > > galleons, which doesn't make sense. > > But that would still make it only one-way, surely? > > The Cup is already *in* the center of the maze. It was, I agree, > probably originally set to carry the first person who touched it out > of the maze and back to the entrance, where they would then > presumably be lauded as the winner of the Tournament and presented > with their thousand galleons. > > But that's still just a one-way ticket. It's not round-trip. It > takes you from the center of the maze to its periphery -- and that's > it. What if the portkey were enchanted to transport only Harry to the graveyard? It's possible that ONLY Harry could be transported. He is the one that Voldemort wanted, after all. Is it possible that whenever Harry, and Harry alone, touched the cup that it transported him to the opposite place. I'm meaning, if he touches it in the maze, he's transported to the graveyard; if he touches it in the graveyard he's transported to the maze. Just a thought.... Alora From hsowaw2001 at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 27 06:01:07 2002 From: hsowaw2001 at yahoo.co.uk (hsowaw2001) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 06:01:07 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore/Hagrid Relationship In-Reply-To: <20020626215712.36704.qmail@web20908.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40429 > Caroline (I believe) wrote: > I think Dumbledore has a big blind spot about > >Hagrid, with Tom > >Riddle's name on it. And that can't be a good thing. > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Nicole P. Lyon" wrote: > While I do think that Dumbledore turns a blind eye to > certains of Hagrid's traits (his drinking comes to > mind), I feel that there's something > more in their history than has been revealed as of > yet. I have to agree with you both. For whatever reason, Dumbledore ~must~ know the truth about the Chamber BEFORE CoS, but can't prove it (much like he knows of Sirius' innocence), and therefore would feel guilty about any wrong doing to Hagrid. The fact that Hagrid is made Game Keeper shows that Albus feels him to be an asset, and is in some small way trying to make up for what Hagrid has had to unjustly endure. Hagrid is a very open person, he shows feroious loyalty to Dumbledore at all times, never once questioning him. I feel this is ~because~ Dumbledore was willing to give him a chance, afterall, he is part giant, generally thought of as viscious creatures. How many other wizards would be willing to wave that fact aside? To sum up, I think, yes, there is more than we are being told about Hagrid and Dumbledore's histories together. The are both extremely trusting of each other, and are strikingly quick to defend one another. That sort of bond comes of some critical event, that they've endured as a team. Maybe there has been another 'Mountain Troll in the Bathroom' senario? --jasmine, who is only on her first Coffee of the day... From GokunVegeta02 at aol.com Thu Jun 27 03:43:51 2002 From: GokunVegeta02 at aol.com (GokunVegeta02 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 23:43:51 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Grey Lady Message-ID: <59.1d7f3eac.2a4be3f7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40430 The grey lady is mentioned in one of the fist couple of chapters once Harry arrives at Hogwarts. She and some other ghosts float through the wall where the students are waiting to be called into the Great Hall for the sorting ceremony. I'm not sure what chapter though, I havent read the books in over a year. Shaynie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dilectio_indomitus at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 27 06:08:56 2002 From: dilectio_indomitus at yahoo.co.uk (dilectio_indomitus) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 06:08:56 -0000 Subject: Dead Basilisk In-Reply-To: <006501c2188f$0de69380$4d7663d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40431 I doubt if there's a shortage of deadly poisons of all sorts in a world where potion making is part of the core curriculum for all. Sure it's there but I think if a wiz wanted to get there hands on some poison all kinds and ingredients could be found pretty easily in some of the darker shops. dilectio_indomitus From daharja at bigpond.net.au Thu Jun 27 11:09:17 2002 From: daharja at bigpond.net.au (Leanne Daharja Veitch) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 21:09:17 +1000 Subject: Fudge and the Longbottoms References: Message-ID: <3D1AF25C.A6BFFA9A@bigpond.net.au> No: HPFGUIDX 40432 Hiall, I'm new to the list (so "hi"!), and have a few comments: 1. First of all, I don't think Fudge was sincerely surprised about Voldemort's return at all - I think he is in league with V. This would explain the MOM's inability to actually *do* anything about V's rise again. BTW, "Fudge" is English slang for "fake": i.e. to say "I fudged the test" = "Ifaked the test". Considering Rowling's continual use of meaningful names throughout, it makes sense to me that Fudge may live up (or down) to his name. 2. I'm convinced that Neville Longbottom is / will turn traitor. Possibly he was resposible for his own parents' deaths. The similarities between Neville and Peter Pettigrew (Wormtail) are too many. Even their names are similar Worm=Long, Tail=Bottom. He's quite clearly a traitorous character to me. In fact, the only time he stands up to Harry et al is when they are off to save the Philosopher's stone - this makes sense in light of the fact that he would have wanted V to get the stone. And it seems odd to me that, despite his continual stuff-ups, he never gets into real danger. Comments? Leanne XXX -- Leanne Daharja Veitch -- http://www.geocities.com/daharja http://www.veganforlife.org http://www.moonspellcoven.com -- "We must be the change we wish to see" - M K Gandhi -- From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Thu Jun 27 12:05:13 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:05:13 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore, Hagrid and Flobberworms Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40433 Pippin has already pointed out how the small size of the wizard community makes professional detachment hard to maintain in all circumstances. I think also that the actual Hogwarts set-up makes professionalism very hard to maintain too. Hagrid's loyalty to Dumbledore is in fact very sorely tested in COS and POA. When Fudge sends Hagrid to Azkaban completely baselessly Dumbledore is powerless to do anything about it. Dumbledore, while able to help clear Hagrid himself over the Buckbeak incident, is unable to save Buckbeak. So, if Dumbledore offers help to Hagrid over his teaching, and encourages him to move on from Flobberworms, what is Hagrid's reaction likely to be? He will refuse, for fear of arbitrarily being sent to Azkaban on a trumped up charge if a Niffler nips Pansy Parkinson. Dumbledore's only recourse then is to threaten Hagrid, in effect piling injustice on injustice. It's not entirely surprising that later on, when confronted with a plainly malevolent Karkaroff, Hagrid overracts. He still has every respect for Dumbledore's character, but I can't blame him for being a bit shaky in his respect for his ability to take the right action to defend himself. In short, from Hagrid's POV, to teach at Hogwarts is to have to fight for your own survival, with only limited help from Dumbledore. This does raise questions as to Dumbledore's wisdom in appointing such a vulnerable person, but dare I venture that it is a major theme of the books that *every* wizarding adult is so vulnerable that they are incapable of fulfilling the professional ideal of teaching (or indeed of fulfilling the basic requirements of adulthood)? To quote Hagrid himself on another of Dumbledore's dodgy appointments: 'Best? He was the *on'y* man prepared to do it' (my paraphrase from memory). You could say that the choice faced by an essentially weak Dumbledore is not between professional and unprofessional teaching, but between no teaching and appallingly bad teaching. What I can't work out is whether JKR sees this as the aftermath of Voldemort's influence, or it merely reflects her real-life experience of teaching in England. David From cindysphynx at comcast.net Thu Jun 27 12:07:27 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:07:27 -0000 Subject: The Triwizard Portkey & Cruciatus Makes You Stronger! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40434 Alora wondered: > What if the portkey were enchanted to transport only Harry to the > graveyard? It's possible that ONLY Harry could be transported. He > is the one that Voldemort wanted, after all. Is it possible that > whenever Harry, and Harry alone, touched the cup that it transported > him to the opposite place. I'm meaning, if he touches it in the > maze, he's transported to the graveyard; if he touches it in the > graveyard he's transported to the maze. Just a thought.... Hmmm. Well, if the portkey were rigged to only transport Harry, this would be a nice trick. But it clearly wasn't, as it transported both Harry and Cedric to the graveyard. And if the Cup were originally enchanted to transport only Harry to the edge of the maze, that would mean the whole Tournament was *rigged*, which isn't very hospitable to the contestants from Beaubatons and Durmstrang. But Alora raises a neat point. Is it possible for a Portkey to be "personalized" -- enchanted so that it only recognizes one person? It would be a great idea (and it might close off some FLINT possibilities in future books). I just don't think JKR thought of it. Pip squeaked (about Cruciatus making wizards stronger): > So, you're working on Thick-As-A-Brick Voldemort now? Oops!-I- >forgot-Cruciatus-makes-a-wizard-stronger Voldemort? I'm-in-the- >middle-of-a-'to-the-death'-duel,-so-let's-just-blast-Harry-twice- >with-a-spell-that-actually-makes-him-stronger Voldemort? Pleeeease! > > Oops!-I-forgot!Voldemort is one thing, but 'Cruciatus as Mars > Bar'[helps you work, rest and play] is Dark-Magic-Resurrections- >will-give-you-brain-damage,-so-please-don't-try-this-at-home- >kiddies! Voldemort. [grin] Uh, yeah. That's right. See, in the back of Voldemort's feeble little mind, he knows that Cruciatus will make Harry stronger. But Voldemort has the weakness that has plagued Evil Overlords since the dawn of time -- he can't resist an opportunity to torture someone. And who can blame him? And if I'm reading the, uh, sex thread correctly, Voldemort is experiencing some serious *passion* there, which he finds downright irresistable. He just plain loses his head when he has been aroused in this fashion; after all, it has been a *long* time since Voldemort's last time torturing someone while not in slimy baby form. So his stronger side tells him *not* to torture Harry, but he's just not thinking straight and he loses sight of his own best interests. Torture. It's the last thing Voldemort thinks about when he lays his slimy head on his pillow, and it's the first thing he thinks about when he turns off his alarm clock in the morning. He's addicted; he can't help himself; he can't get enough. Torture is better than killing, better than controlling. Torture is the ultimate high for Evil Overlords, don't you think? Besides, Voldemort figures that, no matter how strong Harry is, he still can't block AK. No one can. So what's the harm in having a little bit of *fun*. Geez, think how *impressed* the DEs would be with Voldemort's bravery, his confidence in his own power, if Voldemort *strengthens* his enemy before killing him. Oooh, that just about gives me *goosebumps* just to think of it. ;-) Pip: > And all the other people in the Wizarding World who so foolishly >made Cruciatus an Unforgivable! Goodness, it was just because they >don't want the WW full of incredibly powerful wizards - silly me, >for thinking otherwise. [Even Bigger Grin] No, no, no. It's unforgivable because the larger wizarding world doesn't *know* it makes wizards stronger, see. How would they? Those do-gooders banned Cruciatus because it *looks* so bad in application. They never reached the larger question of whether it might have some useful side effects. Cindy (hoping Pip will just concede the point and offer up an Unconditional Surrender) From ronale7 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 27 12:10:34 2002 From: ronale7 at yahoo.com (ronale7) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:10:34 -0000 Subject: Grandpa Voldemort Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40436 Richelle wrote: >>How does this explain that Riddle is James' father and not Lily? I agree with the scenario that Voldemort/Riddle killed James and tried to kill Harry to end that bloodline. However, I just can't picture Voldemort being a softie who stands there and repeatedly tells Lily to "Stand aside." That's on more than one occasion based on the wording, possibly as many as four times he tells her to "stand aside" before killing her. Isn't that an awfully big waste of time? Why spend all that time telling her to get out of the way? Why not just kill her and be done with it as he killed James? It just doesn't fit Voldemort's mold to simply not care if she died or not and take the time out to try to get her to move away from Harry. Unless he knew that something would happen to protect Harry if she died protecting him, which I don't think he did. I'm also still confused why it was Lily's sacrifice that protected Harry from Quirrell/Voldemort when James also died to protect him. Both of them, actually.<< I believe Tom Riddle (Voldemort) is Harry's paternal grandfather--and not his maternal one--because of how he is described. In CS, chapter 17, we are told Tom is black-haired. While it's possible that a black-haired man could father a redheaded woman, it's much more likely that he'll sire a dark-haired child. James is black-haired. And since Harry so strikingly resembles his father and looks something like Tom, it is easier to assume (Occam's razor) the relationship among the three comes through the male line. Additionally, Voldemort cannot have hesitated about killing Lily because he thought her love and sacrifice would protect Harry. In CS chapter 17, Tom says it was only a lucky chance that saved Harry. And in GF, chapter 33, he says he should have remembered the old magic. This suggests he wasn't thinking about it at the time he killed Lily. My guess is Voldemort is goal-fixated. He went to the Potter house determined that no child of James should survive. To accomplish this he had to kill both Harry and James. As to why he wanted this, I refer you again to my earlier post, # 38784. From ronale7 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 27 12:11:14 2002 From: ronale7 at yahoo.com (ronale7) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:11:14 -0000 Subject: Grandpa Voldemort Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40437 Richelle wrote: >>How does this explain that Riddle is James' father and not Lily? I agree with the scenario that Voldemort/Riddle killed James and tried to kill Harry to end that bloodline. However, I just can't picture Voldemort being a softie who stands there and repeatedly tells Lily to "Stand aside." That's on more than one occasion based on the wording, possibly as many as four times he tells her to "stand aside" before killing her. Isn't that an awfully big waste of time? Why spend all that time telling her to get out of the way? Why not just kill her and be done with it as he killed James? It just doesn't fit Voldemort's mold to simply not care if she died or not and take the time out to try to get her to move away from Harry. Unless he knew that something would happen to protect Harry if she died protecting him, which I don't think he did. I'm also still confused why it was Lily's sacrifice that protected Harry from Quirrell/Voldemort when James also died to protect him. Both of them, actually.<< I believe Tom Riddle (Voldemort) is Harry's paternal grandfather--and not his maternal one--because of how he is described. In CS, chapter 17, we are told Tom is black-haired. While it's possible that a black-haired man could father a redheaded woman, it's much more likely that he'll sire a dark-haired child. James is black-haired. And since Harry so strikingly resembles his father and looks something like Tom, it is easier to assume (Occam's razor) the relationship among the three comes through the male line. Additionally, Voldemort cannot have hesitated about killing Lily because he thought her love and sacrifice would protect Harry. In CS chapter 17, Tom says it was only a lucky chance that saved Harry. And in GF, chapter 33, he says he should have remembered the old magic. This suggests he wasn't thinking about it at the time he killed Lily. My guess is Voldemort is goal-fixated. He went to the Potter house determined that no child of James should survive. To accomplish this he had to kill both Harry and James. As to why he wanted this, I refer you again to my earlier post, # 38784. From bard7696 at aol.com Thu Jun 27 12:14:14 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:14:14 -0000 Subject: Fudge and the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: <3D1AF25C.A6BFFA9A@bigpond.net.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40438 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Leanne Daharja Veitch wrote: > Hiall, > > 1. First of all, I don't think Fudge was sincerely surprised about > Voldemort's return at all - I think he is in league with V. This would > explain the MOM's inability to actually *do* anything about V's rise > again. BTW, "Fudge" is English slang for "fake": i.e. to say "I fudged > the test" = "Ifaked the test". Considering Rowling's continual use of > meaningful names throughout, it makes sense to me that Fudge may live up > (or down) to his name. First of all, welcome! This place is great fun. A large portion of the fans feel that Fudge is essentially just like Neville Chamberlain (which I guess would make Dumbledore like Winston Churchill.) My own feeling is that Fudge might not be knowingly and actively working for Voldemort, but is such an easily manipulated fool that he might as well be. I believe we're talking about a guy who truly is not suited for wartime and would rather just believe everything is going on swimmingly. Now, that's what I believe to be going on now. It is entirely possible Fudge is actively working for Voldemort by the end of the series. But I do not think he's been in on it from the beginning. > 2. I'm convinced that Neville Longbottom is / will turn traitor. > Possibly he was resposible for his own parents' deaths. The similarities > between Neville and Peter Pettigrew (Wormtail) are too many. Even their > names are similar Worm=Long, Tail=Bottom. He's quite clearly a > traitorous character to me. In fact, the only time he stands up to Harry > et al is when they are off to save the Philosopher's stone - this makes > sense in light of the fact that he would have wanted V to get the stone. > And it seems odd to me that, despite his continual stuff-ups, he never > gets into real danger. Ah, here is where I disagree, although I think this is a novel theory. :) I believe that the similarities between Pettigrew and Longbottom are far too unsubtle (McGonagall flat-out says it in PoA) to be true, if that makes sense. When leaving clues as to the traitors in the midst, JKR is never so obvious. Besides, my image of the Mauraders is that they hung out together constantly. Pettigrew DID learn how to be an Animagus, which indicates some long study hours, plus running about in the forest with the gang. Perhaps Pettigrew was the little groupie, but I think he was with them all the time. Longbottom isn't with the Trio all the time. He has a huge role in SS/PS and declining roles in the following two books, with the revelation about his folks in GoF. (And really, not a big role in that book.) As for the scene in PS/SS, I'm not sure we can say that Neville is doing Voldemort's bidding. I think a case could be made that Voldemort/Quirrell wanted (or NEEDED) Harry to show up so they could try use him to get the Stone out of the mirror. As for Neville not ever being in real danger, that is true, but he is also not one of the more adventurous characters. And as I've said before, I believe the reason the Slytherin gang has largely left him alone, except for sneering from behind Snape's skirts in Potions class, is that he started whaling on Crabbe and Goyle in PS/SS. But hmmm... did he have something to do with the death of his parents, you ask? First, they aren't dead. But I'll adjust your theory to being responsible for their condition. :) If I have the timeline right, the Longbottoms were maimed sometime in the couple of years after Harry defeated Voldemort. I remember from GoF that Dumbledore says their attack was a shock because everyone was so giddy about Voldemort being gone. Since Neville is the same age, give or take some months, as Harry, that would make him certainly no older than three, or maybe four years old, when his parents got hurt. So it hardly seems possible that he had anything intentional to do with it. Ah, but unintentional? Maybe. :) Darrin -- I remember the first time I posted here. I was very kindly told "There are 2,643,534 other messages on that topic. Here are the numbers!" From editor at texas.net Thu Jun 27 13:32:16 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 08:32:16 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Triwizard Portkey References: Message-ID: <009b01c21ddf$0f1d82e0$a07663d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40439 Elkins first said Even Overconfident "Oops, I forgot!" Voldemort isn't quite so daft, I don't think, as to consider it a good idea to try pitting his thirty some-odd Death Eaters against the cream of the wizarding world, element of surprise or no element of surprise. It would make sense if they could appear, fire off a bunch of curses, and then Disapparate, but since they wouldn't be able to do that, I can't see it as a feasible plan. Dave responded: And the thought of thirty DEs all landing in a jumble on the Quidditch pitch as they try to hold on to the portkey seriously endangered my reputation for sanity in the office. Perhaps Voldemort thought that the Hogwarts staff would die laughing? Amanda now holds forth---> Hrm. You two are laughing at one of my pet theories. **geist rolls up sleeves** I knew I'd done a post on this in the past, and for some reason I always think I explained it better before than I'd be able to state again. So I went and found it. No *wonder* you guys are flippant! My eloquence hath not poured forth on this subject for over a *year*! [Despite the hassles involved in using a search engine that requires incantations, prayer, and the sacrifice of caffeine and chocolate, I *love* reading the old threads---we made such *good points,* we were so *eloquent*! (self excepted)] Anyway, here's what I said. Date: Sun Apr 15, 2001 3:05 pm Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Plot holes filled? Morag Traynor wrote: > Even if V wasn't ready till then (agreed, highly probable, assuming he > wanted to kill Harry personally and not just have Wormtail do it), > Moody needn't have gone to the trouble of entering Harry in the > Tounament. He need only have waited and then used any ordinary > object. It's been postulated in the past that there was a purpose to using the whole "Harry in the tournament" mechanism, above and beyond getting Voldemort re-bodied. That was just part of the plan. Think about it. At the Triwizard tournament, in the audience gathered for the last task, you have (1) the heads of the three most prominent wizarding schools in that part of the world; (2) the top officials of the Ministry of Magic; (3) the children of probably the entire wizarding population of the UK; and (4) the children of several wizarding families from France and wherever Durmstrang is. All gathered there for a day of excitement. There's a good chance that lots of them, saving those serving as referees, didn't even have their wands with them. You could not make a more perfect setting for Voldemort to burst in upon. He has his enemies arrayed in force, unprepared and unready. He has the element of surprise, in spades--he's not even in their thoughts, he's *dead,* the shock of him being alive at all would probably paralyze most of them for the time he needs to make his move. He would have his DeathEaters at his side, so he could expect to be able to do maximum damage. He could take the children of families who oppose him, and ensure their nonparticipation and/or capitulation. I believe, therefore, that the whole plan was something along these lines: (a) get Harry through the tournament as a winner (b) get Harry to the graveyard for Voldemort's reanimation (c) use the portkey to return to the grounds of Hogwarts (d) make major offensive action against the gathered, unsuspecting might of the free world. (e) sit back and mop up. It broke down at (b). Using any other object at any other time would have gotten Harry to the graveyard, but it would not have left the door open to the brilliant tacitcal stroke of taking advantage of the unique crowd at the Tournament. Any other object could also have portkeyed Voldemort into Hogwarts, an advantage since he can't apparate into there, and he could have roamed the halls and taken a few teachers unawares, but he wouldn't have had the ministry officials, the other headmasters, or the children as potential victims/hostages. --Amanda Postscript to revisited message: In the wake of events which have occurred since this was posted, I add to the above that simply killing many of the children of the wizarding families would be a master stroke, inducing great demoralization, fear, and anger (just as likely to be directed at the officials whose defenses failed as against the perpetrator). Voldemort is not likely to care if he loses followers in this action; he is an egotist, he will attract more, he will want to make his decisive attack. And this was a superb way and a golden opportunity. Amandageist From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com Thu Jun 27 13:35:47 2002 From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:35:47 -0000 Subject: Grey Lady In-Reply-To: <20020627001624.82950.qmail@web21508.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40440 > I can find no reference in Book 1 or the other books about this > ghost. There is a passage (chapter 12)where Harry and Ron pass the > ghost of a tall witch, but she is not identified. Can anyone help me out on this? Where is the grey Lady identified as such? > Ok I have both of my copies of SS/PS sitting in front of me... > > In SS: > > Page:210 chapter 12 > "They passed the ghost of a tall witch gliding in the opposite directin, but saw no one else." > > PS: Same chapter Page:154 > Well, That ghost is in fact the Grey Lady. I believe JKR said in an Interveiw ( I found on the HPGalleries< I'd send the link but the site is down and nothing works :( ) That in fact that was the Grey Lady that they passed. Well, I hope that helps. You know, this is exactly the kind of question the Harry Potter Lexicon was designed to answer. I can only assume that you've never been there, or this wouldn't have come up. The Lexicon doesn't answer everything (partly because it doesn't provide rumors and speculation, just the information which is actually given in the books or in interviews). But something like this is a no-brainer. Just go to the site, click on The Wizarding World, and logically find it from there. Or if you like, type "ghosts" or "grey lady" into the search box. 'm not trying to stifle discussion, but I'd rather be talking about theories of whether she's the ghost of some famous person or one of the many Grey Lady ghosts in Britain. Basic factual information like this is exactly why we have the Lexicon in the first place! Any how, here's the listing from the Lexicon: The Grey Lady (Ravenclaw ghost) (SS12) Very little is known about the Grey Lady apart from the fact that she is very tall and she is the resident ghost of Ravenclaw. Harry and Ron encounter her gliding past in the corridor while out looking for the Mirror of Erised (SS12). So how do we know that the Grey Lady is the Ravenclaw ghost? JKR showed a page from her notebook in a televised interview. Clearly visible on that page was the list of house ghosts which indicated that the Ravenclaw ghost was the Grey Lady. In the film, she appeared a number of times. She was sitting at a desk in MacGonagall's classroom when Harry, Ron, and Hermione came bursting in, demanding to talk to Dumbledore. (SS/f) That's found here: http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/hogwarts_ghosts.html Have a look at the Lexicon. I think you'll have fun browsing around and then next time you have a question about something like this, you'll know where to look it up. Steve Vander Ark The Harry Potter Lexicon From cindysphynx at comcast.net Thu Jun 27 14:05:11 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:05:11 -0000 Subject: (TBAY) The Biggest of the Hedgehogs (WAS Pettigrew, Hagrid, and Voldemort's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40441 What's this? Is this a spiffy new theory to explain why on earth Pettigrew chose to hide in Hagrid's cabin in PoA? Why, yes, it is! How did I *miss* this great theory when it appeared a few weeks back? Where have I *been*? What was I *thinking*? I must have been so darn absorbed in bashing Hagrid and dumping "The Portkey" into the Landfill that I completely overlooked this theory ? and all of its Ever So *Bangy* implications. ****************** Elkins mused: >What if Peter *was* hanging around Hagrid's hut in the hopes of >retrieving voldemort's wand -- not from the Centaurs, but from >Hagrid himself? >Who was the first on the scene at Godric's Hollow after Voldemort >was reduced to vapor? What else might he have done while >he was there? Is it possible, given what we know of Hagrid's >character, that he might have picked >up a spare wand that he noticed lying around in the rubble? Elkins gives us the answers to these questions ? it may well have been Hagrid. Hagrid, being loyal to Dumbledore at the time, noticed a wand lying in the rubble *right next to Baby Harry* and tucked it into one of his many pockets. Yes, I like that. At this point, Hagrid has only a snapped wand. If he had the chance to filch a perfectly good wand, he might do it, right? Why not? In fact, we've all assumed that Hagrid has the pieces of his snapped wand hidden in his pink umbrella. That's obvious, right? Nothing to even *think* about there, right? Well, not so fast! Look at what Hagrid actually says to Mr. Olivander in PS/SS: "I've still got the pieces, though," he said brightly. "But you don't use them?" said Mr. Ollivander sharply. "Oh, no, sir," said Hagrid quickly. Harry noticed he gripped his pink umbrella very tightly as he spoke. Oh, Hagrid had something to hide there, perhaps. Not the pieces of a snapped umbrella. I mean, who cares? No, Hagrid has *Voldemort's* wand with him in that scene, that's what's going on! And what *kind* of magic does Hagrid actually perform with that umbrella? Well, one of the spells he performs is giving Dudley that awful pig's tail. That sounds a bit like *Dark* magic, doesn't it? And Hagrid asks Harry to keep secret the fact that Hagrid is performing magic ? something he'd want to hide if he were using Voldemort's wand, right? Not to mention the fact that Hagrid's magic with this wand is very imprecise. He tried to turn Dudley into a pig, but only got a pig's tail out if it. Hagrid's not very capable with this wand -- perhaps because it isn't his own wand at all! OK, I'm with you so far Elkins. What next? Elkins: >What if [Peter] saw Hagrid pick up Voldemort's wand and leave with >it? >This would explain what Peter was doing in Hagrid's hut. He was >looking for Voldemort's wand, on the off-chance that Hagrid still >had it secreted away somewhere in his hovel. Right again! In fact, I think it quite likely that Hagrid knew about Peter and Scabbers all along. No, really. What does Hagrid say when Crookshanks was believed to have eaten Scabbers? Hagrid ought to be *outraged* by this, right? Hagrid supposedly *loves* animals, right? He bonds with his own pets, right? Hagrid should *understand* Ron's grief. But no. Right after Ron loses a pet that has been in his family for 13 *years*, Hagrid brushes aside Ron's heartbreak, saying Crookshanks "acted like all cats do." What?!? What kind of thing is *that* to say? There's only one reason for that sort of callous remark from Hagrid: Hagrid knew full well that Scabbers was alive and well and living in Hagrid's cupboard. Need more proof? No problem at all. Look at GoF. Now, Aurors have been known to *kill* Giants, right? Aurors practically *wiped out* the Giants. There's no love lost there. Yet there's Hagrid in the Leaky Cauldron with *Moody*, of all people, the most famous auror of them all. There ought to be no reason for Hagrid to be a fan of *real* Moody. Hagrid doesn't even applaud for Moody when Moody first enters the entrance hall and is introduced to the students. But somehow by the time of the first task, Hagrid and Moody are *drinking buddies*. Why? Because by the time they go out for drinks, Crouch Jr. had told Hagrid that he was impersonating Moody! Hagrid gives Moody the cold shoulder until he knows that Crouch/Moody is really Ever So Evil! Crouch/Moody and Hagrid are working together to restore Voldemort in GoF, can't you see? Oh, I can't *believe* I didn't work this out *months* ago! Still not convinced? How about *this*, then? Hagrid expresses the utmost confidence that Harry will win. What is *wrong* with Hagrid, anyway? You'd expect him to be tremendously *worried* about Harry's safety in the Tournament. Hagrid should know that Harry doesn't stand a chance without a lot of help, right? But what does Hagrid say to Harry? "Yeh're goin' ter win," Hagrid growled, patting Harry's shoulder again . . . I know it. I can feel it. *Yeh'r goin' ter win, Harry*." Oh, Hagrid knew Harry would win, didn't he? Hagrid made sure of *that* by being one of the teachers appointed to patrol the maze. That's odd, isn't it? Hagrid doesn't even have a proper *wand*, does he? He's not even a full-qualified wizard, and he has trouble with even the simplest spells. But there he is, patrolling the maze *with Moody*. Oh, I know what Hagrid is doing there. He's backstopping Moody, that's what he is doing. And if anyone had noticed what Moody was doing, Hagrid was going to *blast* them if he had to. I can just *see* Moody hiding behind Hagrid's massive body, using Hagrid's bulk to shield him from the prying eyes of the crowd. Did you ever stop to wonder where Hagrid *was* while Harry was fighting for his life in the graveyard? You think he was standing around outside the maze, do you? No way. If Hagrid were close by, Hagrid would have run immediately up to Harry when Harry appeared at the entrance to the maze. Hagrid should have been *worried sick* by all of that commotion, right? Yeah. Well, Hagrid was rather *busy* just then, I'd say. Hagrid had walked off the Hogwarts grounds and apparated to the graveyard. Is there any other decent explanation for Hagrid's total absence from all of the scenes once Harry was transported back to Hogwarts? Hagrid supposedly cares *deeply* about Harry, so where the heck *was* Hagrid, anyway? No, the only explanation is that Hagrid is busy trudging back onto the Hogwarts grounds after watching Harry's duel with Voldemort. Hagrid was right there in the circle with the other DEs. Gee, Hagrid is working *hard* for his Evil Master in GoF. Notice how Dumbledore asks Hagrid to fetch Karkaroff when Moody attacked Krum yet Hagrid is so reluctant to comply? There's a reason for that, too. Hagrid *knew* what was going on, and he didn't want Moody discovered. Hagrid doesn't leave until he absolutely has to lest he arouse suspicion. And what does Hagrid *say* in that scene? Dumbledore mentions "Crouch," and Hagrid has one line: "'Crouch?' Hagrid said blankly." You bet Hagrid's mind went blank there. For one horrible moment, he thought Crouch Jr. had been discovered and all was lost. Oh, it's gonna get *ugly*. Dumbledore probably sent Hagrid on a mission to the giants. And do you know what Hagrid is going to do on that little mission? He's going to fill the Giants in on Voldemort's return and organize them to prepare them for the fight against Dumbledore. Yup, that Hagrid is one to watch. Way back in PS/SS, Hagrid somehow *knew* that Voldemort wasn't really gone. Way back in PS/SS, Hagrid had already convinced Dumbledore to lower his guard and "trust Hagrid with [his] life." Uh-huh. If Dumbledore notices the catwalk suddenly start to sway, he'd better watch his back. 'Cause there is a certain half-Giant sneaking up on him, prepared to push him off into a river of lava. Hagrid Is Ever So Evil ? without question, the biggest Hedgehog of them all! Cindy (who *knew* there was a Big reason why she never warmed to Hagrid) From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Jun 27 14:07:46 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:07:46 -0000 Subject: How much does Snape know? was Wormtail's Name In the Confession (WAS: Spying Game...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40442 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naamagatus" wrote: > > Hmmm. But if Snape knows and accepts (i.e., believes) that Sirius > is innocent - and therefore an ally - why was he so shocked that > Sirius was there? > > When Sirius transforms to human form, the look on Snape's > face "was one of mingled fury and horror." He snarls, "Him! What is > > he doing here?". Again, if Snape knows that Sirius is not a > >traitor, why the fury and horror? > > Well, first of all, I don't think Snape knew about Sirius being a > dog Animagus. When I suggested that Dumbledore filled Snape in > after PoA, I meant that he filled Snape in about the Secret-keeper > switch and Pettigrew being Wormtail the rat Animagus. He may or > may not have mentioned that Sirius was an Animagus too, but GoF > seems to make it pretty clear that Snape didn't know about >Padfoot. But Snape heard Lupin tell the story in he Shack - how his friends became Animagi, etc. If Dumbledore managed to persuade him that Sirius is innocent and Pettigrew a rat Animagus, Snape would have had to realize that that means that Lupin's story - in all its details - was true. So, even if Dumbledore didn't specifically tell him that Sirius is an Animagus, he would still have had to know it. > As for Snape's expression of "fury and horror" -- well, Snape just > discovered the arrogant bastard who nearly murdered him all those > years ago is now a member of Dumbledore's inner circle. I can't accept that. Before the false treachery accusation, Sirius *was* one of Dumbledore's inner circle. Definitely one of the "old gang." Once Dumbledore realized that Sirius was innocent, there's no reason why Sirius shouldn't be reinstated as a highly trusted Light Sider. Which, in fact, is exactly what happened. So, if Snape knew that Sirius was innocent, why the surprise that he is again one of the trusted ones? Snape might have been surprised that Sirius was actually there, even startled at the Animagus transformation; He might have expressed distaste and even hatred, but horrified? Furious? You don't become horrified or furious that a personal adversary of yours, who you *know* belongs to your team, making an appearance as part of the team. Naama From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jun 27 14:19:05 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:19:05 -0000 Subject: Perversion In the Graveyard (WAS: Sexuality in HP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40443 Elkins mentioned the religious connotations in the graveyard scene but there was something she didn't talk about, perhaps out of delicacy. I hesitate for that reason, but I think something should be pointed out. There is, I think, an even bigger elephant than Rochelle's metaphoric rape. There are some very gruesome old anti-Semitic traditions from England about young boys who were kidnapped, bled and tortured to death -- do a search on Hugh of Lincoln or William of Norwich. (warning: much of this material is very offensive) It was obvious to me that Rowling was drawing on these traditions for her dark wizards, making them guilty of these crimes. To tell you the truth, I was so horrified by the echoes of ritual murder that I thought the sexual suggestiveness was just campy by comparison--a touch of Hollywood macabre that I didn't take seriously. It came as a relief. I didn't think Voldemort's laugh in the ear or dilated nostrils posed any additional threat to Harry. Instead they reminded me of the scene in Return of the Jedi where the Emperor strokes Luke's lightsabre and murmurs, "You want this." Scenes like that project a curious innocence onto the characters, as if the storyteller is excluding them from a private joke with the part of the audience that "gets it." Pippin From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu Jun 27 14:33:11 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:33:11 -0000 Subject: (TBAY) The Biggest of the Hedgehogs (WAS Pettigrew, Hagrid, and Voldemort's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40444 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: Just two points: a) If Hagrid was one of the DE at the graveyard, Harry would have noticed the incredible hulk. b) If Hagrid was co-operating with Crouch Jr., it's a bit odd that, under Veritaserum, Crouch didn't mention it (that, of course, applies to any ESE theories that postulate cooperation of the ESE One with Crouch Jr.). Naama From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 27 14:40:59 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:40:59 -0000 Subject: How much does Snape know? was Wormtail's Name In the Confession (WAS: Spying Game...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40445 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naamagatus" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > > As for Snape's expression of "fury and horror" -- well, Snape just > > discovered the arrogant bastard who nearly murdered him all those > > years ago is now a member of Dumbledore's inner circle. > > I can't accept that. Before the false treachery accusation, Sirius > *was* one of Dumbledore's inner circle. Definitely one of the "old > gang." Yeah, and I bet Snape was furious and horrified about it then, too. We just didn't get to see it. And you snipped the rest of my response, which I think is actually more important to explaining Snape's reaction -- he had just gone and waved his Dark Mark around, yelling "woo-hoo, I was a teenage Death Eater" and generally revealing things about his past that he might not at all wish to have revealed in front of Sirius Black. To then discover that Sirius was right there all along must've been a big smack upside the head. (And if Snape was furious and horrified then, wait till he finds out Rita Skeeter was listening too. The poor man will blow a gasket. ) Also keep in mind that what we're reading is Harry's interpretation of Snape's facial expressions, and Harry's not exactly the most reliable interpreter of the finer nuances of Snape's facial expressions. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From kkearney at students.miami.edu Thu Jun 27 14:16:12 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:16:12 -0000 Subject: Fudge and the Longbottoms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40446 Darrin theorized: > If I have the timeline right, the Longbottoms were maimed sometime in > the couple of years after Harry defeated Voldemort. I remember from > GoF that Dumbledore says their attack was a shock because everyone > was so giddy about Voldemort being gone. I have always had the impression that the attack on the Longbottoms occurred much sooner after Voldemort's downfall than that. A few months, maybe. After all, Crouch Jr is described, if I'm not mistaken, as about 18 when he appears in the Pensieve. It seems to me that a successful Death Eater could not have been under too much supervision to avoid detection. If Crouch was still in Hogwarts at the time, this would be extremely difficult. Nor do I think Voldemort would be foolish allow a child into his inner circle. So I've always concluded that Crouch had graduated from Hogwarts already. Which would make him no less that 17 at the time of Voldemort's fall. Also, wizards were celebrating Voldemort's defeat the very day it occurred; it does not seem that it would take very long for them to relax their guard. Hence, one year maximum to the Longbottom torture incident (which clears baby Neville from any involvement). - Corinth From danellegirl56 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 27 13:28:57 2002 From: danellegirl56 at yahoo.com (danellegirl56) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:28:57 -0000 Subject: Sirius Animagus;Broomstick Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40447 Alexander Lomski Wrot: "In the shreicking Shack Lupin tells the story of the Marauders to HRH and invisable Snape. He also mentions that the three of Marauders were animagi> "Yet in GoF ministry seems unaware of the fact that Sirius is an animagus. Surely Snape would squel on Sirius if given the chance?" Now me: Lupin never says exactly what kind of animal Sirius or James could turn into. So what is Snape going to say "Hey minister, Sirius Black may or may not be running around as some kind of large animal." How would they check on that sort of thing? Besides, at the end of PoA, Cornelious Fudge thinks that Snape is a few fries short of a HappyMeal(well, the man did kind of lose it for a while there). Now, at the end of GoF, Snape has not only proved to the minister without a doubt that he was once a DE, but is also standing behind Dumbledore in the opion that Voldemort has risen. This does not lend him particular credence in the minister's mind. Besides, he claimed that the children were confunded and Lupin just plain lying, so how could he then tell people that Sirius wa an animagi when his only source of information was someone who he has spent the entire year calling a liar? I think that while Snape would love to send Sirius back to the dementors, he knows he dosen't any real evidence. Snickerdoodle From dicentra at xmission.com Thu Jun 27 15:00:18 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 15:00:18 -0000 Subject: (TBAY) The Biggest of the Hedgehogs (WAS Pettigrew, Hagrid, and Voldemort's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40448 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naamagatus" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > > > > Just two points: > > a) If Hagrid was one of the DE at the graveyard, Harry would have > noticed the incredible hulk. I'll let Cindy take that one, if she will... > > b) If Hagrid was co-operating with Crouch Jr., it's a bit odd that, > under Veritaserum, Crouch didn't mention it (that, of course, applies > to any ESE theories that postulate cooperation of the ESE One with > Crouch Jr.). > But you see, Dumbledore never specifically asked Crouch Jr. about possible co-conspirators. The Veritaserum makes you tell the truth when asked a question; it doesn't make you volunteer information. That's why ESE Fudge set the dementor on Crouch Jr. and ESE McGonagall and ESE Snape did nothing to prevent it: they all were worried that Dumbledore was going to come back and ask REALLY embarrassing questions. You see, the really irony of the situation is that everyone in the HP series is ESE, but they don't necessarily know about each other. The "good" side is a charade they're all acting out for each other, so really they're fighting themselves. In the end, they'll discover the truth and have a good laugh, and ESE Harry will become the next Voldemort. --Dicentra, who is going to bet the farm on this one From adatole at yahoo.com Thu Jun 27 14:53:23 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (Leon Adato) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:53:23 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: (TBAY) The Biggest of the Hedgehogs (WAS Pettigrew, Hagrid, and Voldemort's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00bf01c21dea$649def60$0464a8c0@dellcpi> No: HPFGUIDX 40449 Cindysphynx says... *************** Need more proof? No problem at all. Look at GoF. Now, Aurors have been known to *kill* Giants, right? Aurors practically *wiped out* the Giants. There's no love lost there. Yet there's Hagrid in the Leaky Cauldron with *Moody*, of all people, the most famous auror of them all. There ought to be no reason for Hagrid to be a fan of *real* Moody. Hagrid doesn't even applaud for Moody when Moody first enters the entrance hall and is introduced to the students. But somehow by the time of the first task, Hagrid and Moody are *drinking buddies*. Why? ************** Sorry, just read that chapter to the kids last night. Hagrid and Dumbledore are the only two who clap for Moody. Everyone else is too shocked to move. I'll quote you the part if you need it, but you get the point. Not that this in any way totally invalidates the very bangness of the ideas here presented. It's just that it's always good to be clear and precise if possible. Cindy goes on: ************* Oh, Hagrid knew Harry would win, didn't he? Hagrid made sure of *that* by being one of the teachers appointed to patrol the maze. That's odd, isn't it? Hagrid doesn't even have a proper *wand*, does he? ************* Aside from the fact that blast-ended screwts were one of the elements of the maze. And that a Sphinx was there. And other magical creatues. Which is his specialty, wand or no. So it makes perfect logical sense to have him there. More from Cindy: ************* No, the only explanation is that Hagrid is busy trudging back onto the Hogwarts grounds after watching Harry's duel with Voldemort. Hagrid was right there in the circle with the other DEs. ************ Um... forgive me for saying this but, how exactly would Harry have missed that one? In the words of Harry Chapin, "6,000 munchkins and a troll". Leon Adato -------------- I have suffered from being misunderstood, but I would have suffered a hell of a lot more if I had been understood. -Clarence Darrow, lawyer and author (1857-1938) From adatole at yahoo.com Thu Jun 27 14:56:39 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (Leon Adato) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:56:39 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: French Derivatives in HP Character Names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00c501c21dea$d90e21d0$0464a8c0@dellcpi> No: HPFGUIDX 40450 In Portugual, when she was married and before she gave birth to her daughter. She's given interviews where she's joked about how the kids teased her in the halls about her name. It also points out why the French translation has so many changes to it (house names, characters, etc). A lot of thought went into the omnamonapoea (sp?) of the translated names, whereas other versions (German?) don't show the same types of changes. But maybe I'm assuming. Anybody want to talk about whether the Spanish version holds up the theory? Leon Adato -------------- I have suffered from being misunderstood, but I would have suffered a hell of a lot more if I had been understood. -Clarence Darrow, lawyer and author (1857-1938) -----Original Message----- From: Arealin [mailto:alina at distantplace.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 9:35 PM To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: French Derivatives in HP Character Names --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "nplyon" wrote: > It's obvious to me that JKR speaks > at least some French, as the structure of the sentences one of the > Beauxbatons students speaks during the QWC scene (pg. 123 in the US > hardcover edition "Ou est Madame Maxime? Nous l'avons perdue--") > indicates that she did not simply pick up a French dictionary and > find the French equivalents for the words she wanted to use (or maybe > someone else wrote the sentences for her...but I digress). Reply: I believe Rowling was a french teacher at one point, isn't that right? Alina. ________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 clare.pilotconsult at btinternet.com Thu Jun 27 15:04:09 2002 From: clare.pilotconsult at btinternet.com (Clare Johnson) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:04:09 +0100 Subject: Neville Longbottom References: <1025179794.1864.4656.m11@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <023b01c21deb$e4953920$17c87ad5@e4t0t4> No: HPFGUIDX 40451 Hello this is my first time of replying so hope that I'm not breaking any rules (there are a lot to take in!) Leanne Daharja Veitch says ." I'm convinced that Neville Longbottom is / will turn traitor". I think that, being so good at herbology, he will actually invent the remedy to cure his parents (who aren't dead but are insane) and other people in the same state.. This seems to tie in with the importance of tolerance and not judging on surface appearances; it always seems to me as if Neville is being set up as a dunce to surprise us all and give him room to develop - ie basic motivations are just as important as cleverness. Clareysage 2002. From ftah3 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 27 16:04:30 2002 From: ftah3 at yahoo.com (ftah3) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:04:30 -0000 Subject: Neville Longbottom In-Reply-To: <023b01c21deb$e4953920$17c87ad5@e4t0t4> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40452 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. Incidentally, I also think that his standing up to HRH in SS/PS dissociates him from a parallel with Peter Pettigrew, and with Pettigrew's fate. Pettigrew is described as having followed Potter, Black & Lupin around like a puppy, always wanting to be accepted; also, he grovels to those who, by association with them, will gain him esteem/power (in school, the Marauders; later, Voldemort). It was that habit of toadying which imho was at the root of his betrayal of James & Lily Potter - he switched sides *not* due to moral strength but due to the fact that he was such a weakling that he was determined to align himself with the one he felt was most powerful. On the other hand, Neville has never groveled around HRH. He doesn't follow them around like a puppy, either - he's around them, because he's in the same house, but he doesn't follow them around looking for approval nor acceptance (unlike, say, possibly Colin Creevy in CoS, who made himself such a nuisance around Harry). 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. From what I've gleaned about Peter Pettigrew, he wouldn't have done that; actually, he'd probably have offered to go along with them, or gone back to bed himself if they told him to. 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 From cindysphynx at comcast.net Thu Jun 27 16:27:03 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:27:03 -0000 Subject: (TBAY) The Biggest of the Hedgehogs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40453 Leon asked (about Hagrid not clapping for Moody's Big entrance): > Sorry, just read that chapter to the kids last night. Hagrid and >Dumbledore are the only two who clap for Moody. Everyone else is >too shocked to move. I'll quote you the part if you need it, but >you get the point. Oh, thank *goodness*! Someone *caught* that! I was starting to *worry* for a minute there! See, I *planted* that little error in my post *on purpose.* As you all know, sometimes Yahoo eats posts. In fact, sometimes my posts get no response *at all* on the list -- like they don't even *exist* or something -- which always makes me wonder if maybe they just didn't make it to the e-mail and digest readers. Or maybe I am the only webview member who can actually *see* my posts or something. So I have taken to planting a wee little canon error in my posts, just so someone will point it out and I will know my post has been received. ;-) And as Leon suggests, that little canon isn't even all that important. Obviously, Hagrid *has* to applaud for Moody's entrance. Dumbledore is sitting right there, and Hagrid knows on which side his bread is buttered. Nice work, Leon! ;-) Naama wondered: > a) If Hagrid was one of the DE at the graveyard, Harry would have > noticed the incredible hulk. and Leon challenged: > Um... forgive me for saying this but, how exactly would Harry have >missed that one? In the words of Harry Chapin, "6,000 munchkins and >a troll". Oh, this isn't a problem *at all* if you read the graveyard scene very, very carefully. Every inch of Hagrid was there, all right. Ready and willing so serve his Evil Master. Let's have a quick look: "The air was suddenly full of the swishing of cloaks. Between graves, behind the yew tree, in every shadowy place, wizards were Apparating. All of them were hooded and masked. And one by one they moved forward . . . slowly, cautiously, as though they could hardly believe their eyes. Voldemort stood in silence, waiting for them. Then one of the Death Eaters fell to his knees, crawled toward Vodemort, and kissed the hem of his black robes. 'Master . . . Master . . . ' he murmered. The Death Eaters behind him did the same; each of them approaching Voldemort on his knees and kissing his robes, before backing away and standing up, forming a silent circle, which enclosed Tom Riddle's grave, Harry, Voldemort, and the sobbing and twitching heap that was Wormtail." Well, would you *look at that*! JKR takes great care to specify that the DEs were difficult to see when they first apparate into the graveyard. They turn up "in every shadowy place," not right out in the open where Harry can see them. In fact, they show up "behind the yew tree" -- a yew tree, I submit, large enough to hide a half-giant? Ah, but they don't stay in their shadowy, concealed places, do they? They wish to kiss Voldemort's robes. But do they march right up to Voldemort? No, they do not. For some reason, some curious, nefarious reason, JKR is quite explicit that the DEs approach Voldemort *on their knees*! Boy, that would make it mighty difficult to pick out a half-Giant if everyone were kneeling and groveling one by one before Voldemort, don't you think? Geez, can she be more *obvious* about how she is trying to hide Hagrid's bulk there? They even *back away* on their knees! JKR is working so hard to conceal Evil!Hagrid that she inadvertently writes some *slapstick* there! I mean, grown men look silly enough crawling, but they look downright *ridiculous* crawling backward, don't you think? Then, just be make sure, she is explicit that the DEs form a circle around Harry, who is still tied to a headstone and *cannot see a single thing behind him*! Oh, no, JKR doesn't want us to *guess* whether Harry can see behind him. She tells us flat out that he cannot: "Harry couldn't make a sound, nor could he see where Wormtail had gone.; he couldn't turn his head to see beyond the headstone; he could see only what was right in front of him." Sheez, she did everything except drop a *footnote* there, didn't she? Oh, I know what you're thinking: "Harry should have recognized Hagrid's voice." Ha! JKR took care of *that* little problem, too, didn't she? "Some of the Death Eaters he passed in silence, but he paused before others and spoke to them." Oh yeah. Harry would have recognized Hagrid's voice. Hagrid knew it and Voldemort knew it. So Voldemort said nothing to Hagrid for good reason. That JKR can be so *thorough* when she is hiding something really *Big*, wouldn't you say? Don't worry, though. When Hagrid pushes Dumbledore off of that catwalk into a river of molten lava, it will be a suicide mission. 'Cause I just *know* Hagrid is going to die in OoP! ;-) Cindy From ronale7 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 27 16:42:55 2002 From: ronale7 at yahoo.com (ronale7) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:42:55 -0000 Subject: Grandpa Voldemort Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40454 Arcum wrote: >>With Voldemort, I could definately see his intention of killing Harry and James as being about bloodlines and a prophesy, but I don't see him as neccessarily related.<< I believe Voldemort is Harry's paternal grandfather. While I can offer no proof of this, neither can anyone disprove it. Only Rowling can do these things. But I can point to the clues and suggestions she gives that support this theory. 1. A familiar tale In SS, chapter 1, we learn a powerful magician has tried to kill a baby. This story appears over the centuries in many different cultures. They each tell of a powerful lord who hears a prophecy: a particular child, once grown, will cause his downfall. To prevent that from happening the lord tries to kill or exile the child, who is usually his son, grandson, or nephew. He fails and what is foretold comes to be. A reader familiar with mythology will now stay alert for further evidence that Harry is Voldemort's nephew or grandson. (He can't be his son, for we're told Harry's father was killed.) 2. Harry's birthday In SS, chapter 8, we learn Harry was born on July 31. This is the date on which the Celts celebrated the festival of their chief god, Lugh. Lugh killed his grandfather, a war god. Rowling often uses old myths in her tale. It's unlikely she accidentally picked this birthday for Harry. Instead it further suggests Harry is Voldemort's grandson. Like Lugh, he may be destined to destroy an evil person. 3. The Centaurs In SS, chapter 15, we learn the centaurs read the planets and foretell the future. They mention others do so too. And twice they refer to Mars being very bright. Mars was a war god. We now have a further suggestion about prophecy and an allusion to a war god. Both strengthen our theory. Additionally, chapter 17 has Voldemort saying Lily died needlessly. This suggests that the prophecy was about Harry or a son of James, while Lily presented no threat. 4. Riddle's observations In CS, chapter 17, Riddle mentions that both he and Harry look somewhat alike and are parselmouths. A genetic inheritance would explain this. Additionally, since we've been told that Harry looks very much like his father, the genetic traits would most likely have been passed along through James. We can now assume that Voldemort is Harry's paternal grandfather. To assume he can be related on his mother's side requires too many other explanations. Instead we should use Occam's razor and work with the simplest solution. 5. Riddle's treatment of Lily In PA, chapter 9, we learn that Voldemort, intent on killing Harry, told Lily to step aside. This suggests that Voldemort doesn't care whether Lily lived or died. He is specifically after Harry and/or any son of James. This strengthens our supposition that the prophecy Voldemort learned either mentioned Harry or referred to James's son. It may have been necessary to kill James to prevent his having other sons. It would not have been necessary to kill Lily. 6. The parricides In GF, we learn that Riddle killed his father and grandfather and that Crouch Jr. killed his own father. That's three parricides in one book. Given Rowling's penchant for foreshadowing, we can assume that another parricide will occur. In all likelihood it will be Harry putting an end to Voldemort, possibly after a great moral struggle. Various posts have disagreed with this theory. Below I list their arguments and such rebuttals as I can muster. 1. It's Such a Big Thing, it can't be true. Being important doesn't make a thing false. Yes, parricide is a big thing--that's why it appears in so many myths. Certainly Rowling isn't afraid of the topic, not with three parricides in GF. 2. The Mirror of Erised doesn't show Riddle as a family member The mirror shows what the viewer wants to see. As Dumbledore himself says, (SS, chapter 12) "the mirror will give us neither knowledge or truth." 3. Riddle isn't the right age to be Harry's grandfather or James's father. Riddle is exactly the right age. The Lexicon says Riddle was born in 1927, James about 1960, and Harry in 1980. That makes Riddle about thirty-three years older than James and fifty-three years older than Harry. These are reasonable age differences for parents and grandparents. 4. Dumbledore says Voldemort is the last remaining descendant of Slytherin Dumbledore doesn't know Riddle had a child. Thus his statement is true, so far as he knows, but mistaken. For that matter, neither Voldemort, nor James, nor anyone else may know Riddle became a father. Or, if they do know, they may not know who the child was. 5. Dumbledore says Harry is a parselmouth because Voldemort's curse gave him that talent. Maybe, but why couldn't the talent have come from two sources, genetics and the curse? It's also possible that Dumbledore, not knowing Voldemort had a descendant, gave the best explanation he could. 6. Rowling denied the kinship in an interview No, Rowling didn't deny it. She laughed and likened such a kinship to Star Wars. That's not denial--that's sidestepping the question. But yes, it would be reminiscent of Luke Skywalker--and of Oedipus, Perseus, Krishna, Lugh, etc. Such feuding kinships have been told of for millennia, world over. --Ronale7 From reincineir at yahoo.com Thu Jun 27 16:46:58 2002 From: reincineir at yahoo.com (reincineir) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:46:58 -0000 Subject: Religion in HP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40456 Something that has been bothering me for a while: what is everyone's take on religion in the HP wizarding world? They have references to and practice such holidays as Christmas and Easter, yet it doesn't seem to make sense that they would be Christian, since in the Bible it was said that "You shall not allow a sorcerer/ess to live." Perhaps wizards are Christian, and regard sorcery as different from wizarding magic (perhaps sorcery is what the Dark Wizards practice?) and thus abide by that rule by hunting out the practitioners of sorcery... but that seems like a stretch, and wizards on the whole seem to be a very pragmatic people. All of the normal things they deal with every day- giants, vampires, magic itself- are supernatural in Muggle eyes, which perhaps makes wizards seem beyond Muggle religion as we know it... but do wizards have their own concept of the supernatural themselves? Is there anything that is supernatural to -them- (other than Muggle science) as their world is supernatural to us? Does it seem like wizards would have/believe in angels? Demons? Gods? -Rei From rvotaw at i-55.com Thu Jun 27 17:07:56 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:07:56 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Grandpa Voldemort Message-ID: <3034175.1025197676551.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40457 Ronale7 writes: >I believe Voldemort is Harry's paternal grandfather. While I can >offer no proof of this, neither can anyone disprove it. Only Rowling >can do these things. But I can point to the clues and suggestions >she gives that support this theory. I still disagree (respectfully, of course). I am still convinced, probably by my own stubborness, that Voldemort/Riddle is Harry's maternal grandfather. I'll elaborate a little on various comments: >In SS, chapter 8, we learn Harry was born on July 31. This is the >date on which the Celts celebrated the festival of their chief god, >Lugh. Lugh killed his grandfather, a war god. > >Rowling often uses old myths in her tale. It's unlikely she >accidentally picked this birthday for Harry. Instead it further >suggests Harry is Voldemort's grandson. Like Lugh, he may be >destined to destroy an evil person. True. But how does it point at James and not Lily being the child of Riddle/Voldemort? >We now have a further suggestion about prophecy and an allusion to a >war god. Both strengthen our theory. Additionally, chapter 17 has >Voldemort saying Lily died needlessly. This suggests that the >prophecy was about Harry or a son of James, while Lily presented no >threat. Right, I agree there, especially the part about the prophecy. But what about all the other people Voldemort killed? Where there deaths all needless to? Probably. Did Voldemort ever hesitate to kill them? Probably not. There's no evidence as such. We have only evidence that he hesitated to kill Lily, giving her ample opportunity to save herself. Why waste time with her? Just kill and go. Lily is the only person I can find evidence of Voldemort hesitating to kill and almost regretting it ("Your mother needen't have died", etc.) Why hestiate unless that was his daughter? Perhaps the prophecy we speak of did not relate to her at all, just James and his son(s). >In CS, chapter 17, Riddle mentions that both he and Harry look >somewhat alike and are parselmouths. A genetic inheritance would >explain this. Additionally, since we've been told that Harry looks >very much like his father, the genetic traits would most likely have >been passed along through James. Could it not be passed down through Lily? Sure, we have no evidence of her being parseltongue, but neither do we of James. Maybe it skips a generation. >In PA, chapter 9, we learn that Voldemort, intent on killing Harry, >told Lily to step aside. This suggests that Voldemort doesn't care >whether Lily lived or died. He is specifically after Harry and/or >any son of James. Yes, he's after Harry. But to me it suggests that Voldemort actually preferred that Lily live, rather than that he didn't care. His "Stand aside you silly girl, stand aside now" comment leads me to believe he rathered her to survive. We have affirmed that he didn't think about a countercurse if she died saving Harry (on his own admission in GoF), so what other reason? I can even stretch it to say "silly girl" could be a term of endearment. >This strengthens our supposition that the prophecy Voldemort learned >either mentioned Harry or referred to James's son. It may have been >necessary to kill James to prevent his having other sons. It would >not have been necessary to kill Lily. No. But is it necessary to have killed others? The McKinnons? the Beres? the Prewetts? Do you really think they were all standing between Voldemort and James and Harry? Did Voldemort tell them to stand aside too? I doubt it. >Riddle is exactly the right age. The Lexicon says Riddle was born in >1927, James about 1960, and Harry in 1980. That makes Riddle about >thirty-three years older than James and fifty-three years older than >Harry. These are reasonable age differences for parents and >grandparents. Yep. Right age for Lily too. >Dumbledore doesn't know Riddle had a child. Thus his statement is >true, so far as he knows, but mistaken. For that matter, neither >Voldemort, nor James, nor anyone else may know Riddle became a >father. Or, if they do know, they may not know who the child was. True. Could be Lily. Now, my only defending points that separate Lily from James as the child of Riddle/Voldemort: There's something about the green eyes. That much is certain. Slythern=green, Riddle=Slytherin. JKR has affirmed that something major will be revealed about Lily's past in Books 5-7, and that the fact that Harry had her green eyes will be VERY important. I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time. The second, I think. ;) I'll shut up now, there's a thunderstorm and the lights keep blinking and I've typed too long to waste it! Richelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bard7696 at aol.com Thu Jun 27 17:36:09 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 17:36:09 -0000 Subject: How much does Snape know? was Wormtail's Name In the Confession (WAS: Spying Game...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40458 Marina wrote: > > Also keep in mind that what we're reading is Harry's interpretation of > Snape's facial expressions, and Harry's not exactly the most reliable > interpreter of the finer nuances of Snape's facial expressions. > > No, we're not. Harry has never been the narrator of the books. It is a third-person omniscient narrator. Here is the quote, from page 712 of the American edition of GoF: Snape had not yelled or jumped backward, but the look on his face was one of mingled fury and horror. "Him!" he snarled, staring at Sirius, whose face showed equal dislike. Harry is not interpreting his facial expressions. An all-knowing narrator is telling us what the facial expressions were. So, fury and horror is what he had going on there. What it meant is up for debate, certainly, but furious and horrified are the emotions Snape was feeling. Harry doesn't tell us so. JKR tells us so through the narrator. Now, to throw something out here. We don't know what Snape knows and what he doesn't because we don't know how much of the conversation he heard in the Shrieking Shack before revealing himself. He doesn't reveal himself until after Harry says: "So that's why Snape doesn't like you, because he thought you were in on the joke" (pge 357, PoA U.S. edition) Lupin enters the Shrieking Shack at page 343. Snape reveals himself at 357. On page 404, when Harry and Hermione are in time travel mode, they witnes Lupin enter the Weeping Willow. They then have a bit of dialogue, then watch Hagrid "meander tipsily" up to the castle as they try to keep Buckbeak from running to Hagrid. God knows how long it takes Hagrid to "meander tipsily" up to the castle, but just over two minutes later, Snape comes charging out. Then ... "barely two minutes" later, Snape runs out of the castle. Assume it takes a minute for him to get from the castle to the tree, pick up the Invisibility Cloak and realize what it was, and then go into the Willow. That's three minutes. Does it take several minutes for Hagrid to wander up to the castle? If it does, Snape is anywhere from 8-10 minutes behind Lupin. Maybe you can add a bit of time because Snape would want to take pains to be quiet, and be going a bit more slowly. Call it, just to throw something out, 10 minutes. So we have 14 pages of dialogue -- and I have looked through and not seen any references to "minutes passed in silence" or some such to give us time clues -- and 10 minutes, by my reckoning, to pass them. It would be tight, but, I just read the pages. There is no reference to Sirius being able to turn into a dog at all. The only time it comes close is on page 355, referring to Sirius as Padfoot. So, even if Snape had been right on Lupin's heels, he'd not have heard the animal Sirius can transform into. It is entirely possible that Snape overheard that Sirius is an Animagus, but did not hear what he could turn into. In all the confusion in the hospital scene of GoF, he might not have said: "Black Dog = Sirius" and indeed been surprised. So, Snape being shocked upon seeing Sirius again in GoF is entirely plausible. Darrin -- wants a narrator for my life From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Jun 27 18:05:27 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 18:05:27 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Peter Doesn't Get The Girl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40459 Elkins pauses outside of the door to the lecture hall in the basement of the Canon Museum, biting nervously at her lower lip and toying with the black market time-turner that she wears on a chain around her neck. "Now this isn't one of those sorry things like the Ministry has on offer," the dubious fellow Elkins had met loitering outside of one of the more disreputable shops in Hypothetic Alley had explained to her. "Not one of those piddling hour-by-hour deals. This is a Yellow Flag Special, this is. This baby can take you back days, you get me? *Weeks* even, you wanna take that risk." "Risk?" Elkins had asked. "Um, yeah. So...uh, what kind of, er, risks are we talking about here?" "Oh, you know." The man had shrugged. "The usual. You interested or not?" Under ordinary circumstances, Elkins wouldn't have been interested. But these are not ordinary circumstances. Far from it. Ever since the Memory Charm Symposium, something seems to have gone terribly wrong with her ability to remember things clearly. She has been troubled by these terribly disturbing thoughts. Well, more like images, really. *Visions,* perhaps. In one of them, she is screaming at the top of her lungs, while waving Cindy's Big Paddle about in the air. In another, there are pieces of paper falling about her like snow. Snack foods, flying through the air. Splintering wood. And then there's the one... But, no. Elkins shakes her head. That one doesn't even bear thinking about. It's just too ludicrous, really. There is just No Way that she actually *broke* Cindy's Big Paddle. She would *never* have done a thing like that. For one thing, it would have been utterly out of character. For another...well, if she'd really done such a rash and ridiculous thing, surely Cindy would have *killed* her. Wouldn't she? And then there's the one in which she's on some kind of movie set. Elkins just doesn't know *what* to make of that one. Elkins does know, of course, that sometimes it is best just to let the past lie dormant. She's said so herself, many a time. But she just can't help herself. She *has* to find out what really happened that night. Now, though, reeling and nauseated and dizzy from the experience of jumping all the way back to the night of the Memory Charm Symposium, Elkins is beginning to think that this was probably a really *stupid* idea. Her vision is blurry, the Yellow Flag Special feels unusually heavy around her neck, and she desperately wishes that she had never noticed the legend "ACME" printed in peeling gold flake across its base. Oh, stop being such a wuss, she tells herself crossly. It's only time travel, after all. What could possibly go wrong? As if on cue, Lucius Malfoy stalks through the door to the lecture hall, reaching for his wand. Elkins, who has spent the past three months or so living in the basement of the Canon Museum specifically in the hopes of avoiding just such a confrontation, gasps and cringes back against the wall, but the man doesn't seem to notice her at all. His cold grey eyes, narrowed in slits of fury, are fixed on the stairs at the end of the corridor. As he sweeps past, Elkins thinks that she hears him muttering something about slanderous accusations. She sags against the wall, gasping for air. Okay, she thinks. That was not good. But Malfoy never attended the Memory Charm Symposium, did he? She doesn't remember seeing him there. Could she have overshot somehow? Is this even the right *night?* Where's a convenient calendar when you need one? Elkins wonders irritably, right before she remembers that here in the Canon Museum, the header of the post to which one is replying is almost always to be found written on the wall somewhere close at hand. After a moment's scrutiny of the wall, she finds the graffito, scrawled in red ink. "Message 39000," the byline reads. "Wed May 22, 2002. 3:23 pm. 'Theory Bay -- What is going on? -- I'm leaving LOLLIPOPS.'" May 22? Was that right? Elkins just can't remember. Even though she knows that she's not supposed to allow herself to be seen, she risks a peek around the doorframe and into the lecture hall. The Memory Charm Symposium does indeed seem to be over, but it can't have been over for too long. The place is still a mess: cheese whiz and kool-aid everywhere, chairs and lectern reduced to splinters of wood. At first glance, the room seems to be empty, but then Elkins spots motion. She ducks back out of the doorway and presses herself against the wall. "Well, Peter," she hears Eileen's voice commenting from somewhere within the empty lecture hall. "We meet again." Why, it's Eileen! Elkins thinks. And Mr. Pettigrew! My friends. My old friends. "Did you really think you could postpone this moment forever?" Eileen is demanding. "Did you really think that you could mislead us with stories of Severus's undying passion for Lily? It was you who started that story, wasn't it?" Elkins' eyes widen. Oh, she thinks. So Eileen's going *here,* is she? Well! About time, really. About time. "Do you want to know, Peter," Eileen purrs lazily. "When I began to be suspicious?" The congruity of names, Elkins thinks. Certainly the congruity of names was what first started her own mind working down those passages, and given Eileen's passion for LotR, that must have been it for her as well: the congruity of names between JKR's "Wormtail" and JRR's "Wormtongue." We do know, after all, that JKR is herself vulnerable to the associative power of naming. And it's clear enough that she has been subconsciously influenced by Tolkien. We see it in every hair of Albus Dumbledore's beard, in every twinkle of his eyes, in that "Ware Balrog" sign that Pip once noticed stuck to his back. We see it in the name "Longbottom." And we see it in the name "Wormtail," so desperately reminiscent of "Wormtongue." Ah, yes. Grima Wormtongue, whose price for betrayal was the woman that he had long secretly desired, long watched furtively with those heavy-lidded eyes -- a physical descriptor which JKR, strangely enough, seems to have subconsciously replicated and yet displaced onto the Ever So Sexy Mrs. Lestrange. Wormtongue, the corrupted advisor. Wormtongue, who confronted with the evidence of his crimes first denies everything and then grovels pitifully. Wormtongue, the archetypical ill-used sycophant. The avatar of the Worm Who Turns Too Late. Blessed Grima Wormtongue, the Patron Saint of SYCOPHANTS. "It was the whole tEWWW EWWW tEWW be trEWWW affair," Eileen is explaining. "It seemed out of character for Snape and Voldemort..." Yes. Elkins nods with satisfaction. Eileen is right. The "TEWWW EWWW" theory had never really worked very well for her back when it had Snape cast in its leading role. Peter, on the other hand... Well, yes. Yes, that could work. It could work quite well. If we rework TEWW EWWW To Be TREWWW so that it is *Peter,* rather than Snape, who was offered Lily as his prize, then everything begins to fit together. It explains why Voldemort hesitated for only that split second before cheerfully slaughtering Lily. After all, if he'd really promised her to some *competent* Death Eater, one with some genuinely useful *skills,* then one might think that he would have thought twice before deciding not to follow through on his promise. It's not as if he couldn't have stunned Lily, or bound her, or Imperio'd her -- or in fact done anything at all to her that he liked, as apparently at the time she was either engaged in a fiendishly clever little bit of manipulation to arrange her own maternal sacrifice, or merely doing an excellent impersonation of Hermione's infamous "are you a witch or aren't you?" performance from the end of PS/SS. She wasn't doing anything to protect herself. She wasn't doing very much of anything at all, in fact, other than screaming and begging and carrying on like a Weak Woman. So why wouldn't Voldemort have actually followed through, if he had really promised her to someone with useful talents, like Snape? Ah, but if he had promised her to *Peter?* Weak, snivelling, eminently bulliable little Peter Pettigrew? Well, that would be different, wouldn't it? Pettigrew's usefulness resided solely in his connection with the Potters and their circle. By his act of betrayal, he had already outlived his usefulness, so what would be the point in rewarding him at all? His devotion was no longer required. So it would really be far more entertaining, from Voldemort's point of view, just to kill Lily and have done with it. Peter does, after all, have this amazing ability to lead others to underestimate just how dangerous his disloyalty can be, does he not? It also explains why Peter never sought out Voldemort until he felt that he had absolutely no other option. Sirius claims that this was because he never did anything unless there was something in it for him, but it's really rather more complicated than that, isn't it? There's a lot more going on. Voldemort *betrayed* Peter. He promised him the woman he desired. And then he killed her instead. Small wonder that Voldemort does not trust Peter's loyalty! And small wonder that Peter himself seems so mistrustful of Voldemort's likelihood of keeping his promises this time around. From Peter's perspective, you see, Voldemort has a really lousy track record when it comes to this kind of thing. In fact, right after Voldemort's rebirth, when maimed Pettigrew gasps out his reminder of some "promise" to his unimpressed master, is he really referring to a current event at all? We have all naturally assumed that Voldemort must have promised Pettigrew some reward in exchange for the sacrifice of his hand. But the words can be read differently. It could be that what Peter was really trying to say there was: "Don't hold my past disloyalty against me. You promised me Lily, and you reneged. Surely you can understand why I might have been a bit faithless, under the circumstances? So come on, be a sport, won't you? *I* sure have. Don't make me bleed to death here in this creepy graveyard, okay?" Lily's death would also explain the depths of Peter's self-hatred, all of his self-destructive tendencies, his apparent fondness for dramatic acts of symbolic self-castration. Oh, yes, he's just a mass of Freudian conflict, Peter is! Just look at what he does in the wake of the Potters' deaths, once he is faced with the truth of what he has done. What does he do when Voldemort has betrayed him by reneging on his side of the bargain and then vanishing, leaving him with no allies at all? He frames Sirius, that's what! Sirius, Harry's godfather. Sirius, who served as Best Man at James and Lily's wedding. Sirius, who was "inseparable" from James himself. It is a pragmatic act -- Sirius is, after all, the person Dumbledore believes to be the Potters' Secret Keeper -- but is it not also a highly *symbolic* one? And how about that pointer finger, eh? Peter really didn't need to cut off his own *finger.* Any identifying marker would have done just as well. And even if he did feel that leaving behind a finger was necessary to make the evidence for his own death seem incontrovertible, surely any sane person would still rather lose a pinky, say? Or a ring finger? Not a pointer finger, and certainly not the pointer finger of ones *good* hand. It's an insane choice, viewed from any rational perspective. But place it in the context of a grief-crazed Pettigrew who *knows* the nature of his sin, and it all begins to make sense. For in truth, we all know what a pointer finger represents, don't we? Everybody sniggered back when Nancy Stouffer claimed that Peter's missing finger represented his "inability to make a point," and well they should have! Because we all know what a pointer finger *really* represents. All good Freudians know *that.* If thy right pointer finger offend thee, cut it off. Eeeee-yup. Peter indulged himself in a little act of symbolic self- emasculation on that street corner, all right. Perhaps he felt that it was an act of atonement. Perhaps he wanted to make the self- punishment fit the crime. And indeed, ever since then he's been quite the little castrati. We've talked a bit about all the ways in which JKR exempts Pettigrew from the hurt-comfort dynamic -- by making his suffering grotesque and repulsive, by showing him as utterly lacking in pride or dignity, and so forth -- but really, it goes even deeper than that. No one crushes on Pettigrew. *No one.* That is because the text goes out of its way to mark him as fundamentally sexless. He is soft and balding, like a palace eunuch. He cowers sobbing on the floor like an "oversized, balding baby," an infantalizing description which is also an inherently degendering one. Pettigrew's behavior codes as neither masculine nor effeminate, but as neuter. Or perhaps we should say as *neutered.* As Scabbers, his primary descriptors are "fat" and "lazy." These are the words that we use to describe a castrated male animal. It is how we describe a pet who has been *fixed.* Elkins nods to herself and returns her attention to the conversation underway in the lecture hall. She's clearly missed some of Eileen's cross-examination while she has been musing: from the sound of his wheezing, Peter seems to be practically on the verge of snivelling now. In spite of herself, Elkins frowns. Although she is certainly all prepared to hop on board with this theory, she can't help but feel a bit put off by Eileen's methodology. Really, she thinks disapprovingly. I mean, honestly! Is it really necessary to extract a *confession* out of the poor little rat? As if he doesn't already get enough of this sort of treatment in the canon, we're now going to start subjecting him to it here in the *Bay,* as well? Eileen's gone all Tough and Steely, Elkins concludes sadly. It must have been all of that CRAB CUSTARD that did it to her. "Mr. Pettigrew," she is saying, in her new Tough and Steely way. "I've read Prisoner of Azkaban. I've also read Goblet of Fire. I know more of your post-1981 behaviour than Mr. Black does, I assure you. And... well, you couldn't look him in his eyes, could you? You could bind him to the stone, cut him, stand by while Voldemort tormented him, but you just couldn't look into those green eyes." No. Elkins nods once more. No, he couldn't force himself to look into those green eyes, could he? Was there really a little bit of life debt troubling his conscience there in the graveyard, as we have been led to conclude? Some nagging bit of scruple, perhaps, imposed by a strange mystical bond? Well...perhaps. Perhaps. But the graveyard is hardly the *only* place that Peter has exhibited such reluctance to look Harry in the eyes, is it? In fact, he shows that same reluctance even before he's accumulated any burdensome life debt at all. He never once faces Harry in the Shrieking Shack until the very end, when he has already checked everyone else in the room off on his Supplication List. And even then he is reluctant. He hesitates, he "turned his head slowly." He is far more willing to clasp Harry's knees or to grovel at his feet than he is to look directly into those familiar emerald green eyes... And when he finally does bring himself to do so...well, just look at the masterpiece of misdirection that he delivers: "Harry...Harry...you look just like your father...just like him..." Ah, yes. Well. Snape always harps on Harry's resemblance to his father too, doesn't he? And yet we all know what's really eating away at *him,* right? With a thrill of sick horror, Elkins suddenly notices that a lollipop has suddenly appeared in her left hand. She gasps, then tosses the nasty sticky sugary thing off to one side, shuddering uncontrollably. Oh, she thinks. Oh, that was close. Close call, there. Too close for comfort. 'Waaaaay too close. But still. Still, still, still. Still and all. If this misdirection ploy is good enough for Snape Loved Lily, then surely it is also good enough for Peter Loved Lily. After all, as we all know, Severus Snape is nothing but Peter Pettigrew, through the looking glass. Yes, it's clearly misdirection, all of this "your father"ing that Pettigrew gets up to in the Shrieking Shack. He knows full well that if Sirius and Remus come to suspect, even to *suspect,* even for a split-second, the true nature of his nasty little arrangement with Voldemort, they will blast him into tiny pieces right there on the spot. He's not taking that chance. He's not going to risk using Lily's name at *all,* not right there, not under the circumstances. Peter knows that he's useless when it comes to hiding his emotions. He knows that if he even once speaks her name, his voice will betray him. As indeed, his words very nearly do. Consider this line, for example: "Harry, James wouldn't have wanted me killed...James would have understood, Harry..." He would? James would have *understood?* Understood what, for heaven's sake? Cowardice? Self-interest? Betrayal? No. James would not have understood. That is because James was *heroic.* In fact, James was so tediously and irritatingly and *boringly* heroic that not one reader has ever confessed to having a crush on him. James would never have understood such motivations. But one thing that even he, one thing that even the Ever So Infuriatingly Virtuous James Potter might have understood? Even *he* might have understood how it must feel to be haunted, obsessed, tormented, *consumed* by the fires of passion for the lovely young Lily. After all, he married her. Ah, yes. Misdirection. The favored pasttime of so very many notable SYCOPHANTS. And there's more, too! There's ever so much more! Just listen to Peter whine, as he tries to justify his behavior in the Shrieking Shack. "I was scared...I was never brave...He forced me...He would have killed me..." Uh-huh. Cowardice. It's a feeble defense, but not an altogether unappealing one. It inspires disgust, but it can also inspire pity, even sometimes sympathy. Who among us, after all, has never felt terribly afraid? But is that *really* what lay at the heart of Peter's betrayal? Peter, you will note, is a *liar.* He is a liar in fear for his life. And while cowardice is indeed shameful, there are forms of venality far less likely to inspire pity, far more likely to warrant summary execution at the hands of ones erstwhile friends. Could Peter's confessions of rank cowardice be merely a cover? A cover for something even less forgivable? Could his true weakness never have been cowardice at all, but rather *lust?* Really, how could anyone miss all of the clues we have been given to show us that Peter had a thing for Lily? Just look at his weakness for red-heads! Just look at what he does after Voldemort's fall! He retreats into his animagus form to hide himself away both from his erstwhile DE colleagues and from any of Dumbledore's people who might come to suspect him. He seeks out a wizarding family to adopt so that he might stay abreast of important events in the wizarding world. He somehow manages to ingratiate himself to a young Percy Weasley, and is then taken into the bosom of the family. All well and good. But why on earth would he choose the *Weasleys?* Now admittedly, Peter probably didn't stand much chance of getting in with some snooty old family like the Malfoys, not with his unprepossessing appearance and all, but surely he could have found a family somewhat more usefully placed than Arthur Weasley's. Arthur Weasley works in Misuse of Muggle Artifacts, for heaven's sake! Wouldn't the family of some lower eschelon worker in one of the more directly active branches of law enforcement have made a somewhat better choice? The family of someone who files away reports on contemporary Dark activities, perhaps? Someone who might know something useful about the at-large Death Eaters, or about Voldemort's current status, or about continuing intelligence into the entire affair? Someone who deals with something slightly more relevant than enchanted *tea sets,* for heaven's sake? But the instant that Peter laid eyes on his first Weasley, he just couldn't resist. Of course he couldn't! Not with all of that red hair. That red hair. Just like *hers.* No, Harry's eyes aren't the only thing that touches on Pettigrew's weakness. The Weasley hair does it to him as well. Just look at how he treats Ron when he makes his escape at the end of _PoA._ He sends the kid into some kind of magically-induced coma. He could have killed him. He could have hurt him. But he doesn't, in spite of the fact that he has to take Ron out *quickly,* and in spite of the fact that Ron refused to speak so much as a *word* in his defense back there in the Shack. There's no life debt *there,* that's for sure. Ron just won't go to bat at all for poor Peter in the Shack, will he? He recoils in disgust, he all but kicks the man in the face, and this in spite of three years of loyal (if somewhat uninspired) pet duty. Why, Peter even bit Goyle for Ron once, and Goyle was really a whole *lot* bigger than he was at the time. But is Ron appreciative? Hah! Little ingrate. And yet Peter treats him gently enough, all things considered. In fact, given that Ron has a broken leg, and that Peter is abandoning the lot of them to the mercies of Werewolf!Lupin, his treatment of Ron is downright merciful. The boy is sure to be eaten no matter what happens, but at least this way, he will be spared the terror and the pain of the experience. It's far more consideration than Ron was willing to show to Peter, that's for sure. Yup. It's gotta be that red hair. How could Peter bring himself to harm directly a boy with hair so much like hers? The sound of her own name startles Elkins out of her reverie. "...Elkins will be applying Cruciatus," Eileen is saying hurredly, a new note of nervousness in her voice, "the rest will be pouring Veritaserum down my throat, and putting me under Imperius. They might even time-travel to revisit our conversation..." Elkins starts guiltily, one hand reaching up to cover the Yellow Flag Special around her neck. "Whatever the correct answer to our memory charm speculations..." Elkins relaxes and tunes out again. Just more memory charms, she thinks. Whatever. Elkins is sick to death of memory charms. Instead, she ponders once again that old old question of precisely who *was* kissing Florence behind the greenhouses. According to "Peter Gets The Girl," it was Peter, snogging it up with the future Mrs. Lestrange, and it was Peter who hexed Bertha Jorkins as well. Bertha Jorkins' appearance in the Pensieve scene of _GoF_ thus serves as a powerful message from Dumbledore's subconscious mind: "Hey, dummy," it is trying to tell him. "The one responsible for Bertha's disappearance is *Peter Pettigrew.* Don't you remember how he hexed her, back in his student days? Yeah, well, he's done it again." All well and good. But what "Peter Gets the Girl" has never quite answered to Elkins' satisfaction is *why* Peter would have hexed nosy Bertha Jorkins for teasing him about kissing a girl. Wouldn't a chubby little bottom-feeder like Peter kind of *like* it for everyone to know that he'd actually managed to kiss a real live girl? Well. Not if he was in love with Lily, he wouldn't. Not if she wasn't yet involved with James. Not if he'd been hoping that might someday have a chance with her. Not if his tete-a-tete with Florence was just his way of passing time while he was carefully laying all the groundwork for getting in good with Lily by playing up that entire hapless "poor Peter never gets a date" schtick for all it was worth. Not if he had based his entire *strategy* on the premise of his own romantic helplessness. Oh, yeah. Bertha just *ruined* Peter's strategy there, giving the game away that he actually *was* capable of finding female companionship when he wanted it. Undercutting all of that "Hopelessly Devoted Admirer Who Will NEVER Get A Date With Anyone Else" stuff that he'd been feeding to sympathetic soft-touch "Lily-Was-Nice" Lily. Giving the show away that dear little "Oh, I can talk to *you* about this, Peter, because you're not *like* all the other boys, Peter" Pettigrew really was "just like all the other boys" after all. After finding out that Peter had been snogging Florence behind the greenhouses, was Lily ever going to give way to the temptation to let him have just one sympathy...uh, hug? Nope. Not a chance. Bertha just ruined Peter's entire strategy, she did. And he didn't forget that, either. Not by a long shot. Canon, Elkins thinks. Is there canon? Why, yes! There is! _GoF,_ very first chapter: "'A stroke of brilliance I would not have thought possible from you, Wormtail -- though, if truth be told, you were not aware how useful she would be when you caught her, were you?' 'I--I thought she might be useful, My Lord--' 'Liar,' said the second voice again, the cruel amusement more pronounced than ever." Mmmmmm. A curious question, that? Why on earth *did* Pettigrew think to bring Bertha Jorkins all the way to Voldemort, rather than just, say, killing her himself to ensure her silence? Why go to all the trouble to drag her into the woods and introduce her to his vaporous Dark Lord? Can you say, 'Payback?' Because this isn't precisely 'Peter Gets the Girl.' This is 'Peter DOESN'T Get the Girl,' and the fact that Peter never got the girl ruined his entire *life,* and as far as he's concerned, Bertha Jorkins was partially to blame for that. If she hadn't ruined his chances with Lily, after all, perhaps then he never would have become so *bitter,* so *twisted,* so willing to throw his lot in with Voldemort just to-- "Kill me, and they'll find out eventually!" Eileen's voice has now risen in something that sounds distressingly akin to panic. Elkins blinks, then frowns. "I think Elkins very nearly had it once, and the others are hot on your trail. I promise," gulps Eileen. "I promise. I'll get them not to tell Harry, if you leave me alive." Elkins winces. So much for the new and improved Tough 'n' Steely Eileen, she thinks. Oh, well. Stands to reason. After all, we SYCOPHANTS can hardly ever maintain that demeanor. Not, at any rate, for any significant length of time. "Why should you believe me?" asks Eileen. "Well, I'm a Gryffindor." There is a rather awkward silence. "Oh," Eileen whispers. "I see. Right. I just didn't see it ending this way. CINDY!" she screams suddenly. "CINDY, THERE'S A DE MURDERING ME IN THE BASEMENT! AND I WANT TO LIVE! I WANT TO LIVE TO RELAX IN OUR NEW CANON SUPPORTED MATCHING ARMCHAIR! HELP!" Elkins can hear the sound of footsteps pounding their way down the stairs. She glances up and down the corridor, bites her lip, and then reaches up to the Yellow Flag Special around her neck. "Sorry, Eileen," she whispers, and turns it, five times fast. Elkins, you see, has never once been in any danger of being sorted Gryffindor. She finds herself abruptly -- far too abruptly -- back in June. The museum is quiet and empty. The floors seem to have been polished fairly recently. There is no graffiti on the walls. Elkins staggers weakly up the stairs and out the door, into the nearby Garden of Good and Evil. She stands motionless for a moment, staring blankly at the sundial in the middle of the garden ("It is later than you think"), and then falls to her knees to be violently sick into one of the rosebushes. As she disentangles her hair from one of the thorns, she hears newcomer User Google, musing out loud: "Will Wormtail Pull A Gollum?" Elkins coughs and wipes the back of her hand across her mouth. "A Gollum?" she repeats to herself. "A *Gollum?*" She shakes her head. "Nah," she says. "Way too obvious." -- Elkins, always happy to light a single candle to Grima Wormtongue, the Patron Saint of SYCOPHANTS 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 From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 27 18:18:12 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 18:18:12 -0000 Subject: How much does Snape know? was Wormtail's Name In the Confession (WAS: Spying Game...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40460 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > Marina wrote: > > > > Also keep in mind that what we're reading is Harry's interpretation > of > > Snape's facial expressions, and Harry's not exactly the most > reliable > > interpreter of the finer nuances of Snape's facial expressions. > > > > > > > No, we're not. Harry has never been the narrator of the books. It is > a third-person omniscient narrator. No, it's third-person limited POV. And except for the opening chapter, where we get a glimpse into Frank Bryce, the third person whose limited POV we're getting is Harry. We see only what he sees, we hear only what he hears, we learn only what he learns and when he learns it. His thoughts and feelings are the only ones we're privvy to, and we see everything the way he sees it. > > Here is the quote, from page 712 of the American edition of GoF: > > Snape had not yelled or jumped backward, but the look on his face was > one of mingled fury and horror. > > "Him!" he snarled, staring at Sirius, whose face showed equal dislike. > > Harry is not interpreting his facial expressions. An all-knowing > narrator is telling us what the facial expressions were. The narration is telling us what Harry saw, filtered through the lens of Harry's point of view. Harry looked at Snape's expression (which is the only reason why the narration can tell us about it), and saw it as "fury and horror". The other characters present may have see it as something entirely different; we just don't know. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From TaliaDawn3 at aol.com Thu Jun 27 15:52:41 2002 From: TaliaDawn3 at aol.com (TaliaDawn3 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:52:41 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's "sudden movement" Message-ID: <50.d88cafd.2a4c8ec9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40461 But my question now becomes: How close to Hogwarts can you Apparate/Disapparate? There is every possibility that you can do it, not on the grounds, but within close vicinity of the grounds, and that would enable Snape to return to Hogwarts. Unless I don't remember this, it's never said how close you can be, just that you cannot do it on the grounds. Snape could have been there (but as a die hard Snape fan (hehehe, Alan Rickman pun!) I sincerely hope he's not evil!), unless there's something about Apparation/Disapparation that's not in the US edition of the books. ~*~*~Talia Dawn~*~*~ What's the Spanish word for caliente? Who's with the band? I'm not with the band? Do you know anyone with the band? I don't know anyone with the band. Is there a band here? I see you shiver, with antici.........................pation. Don't dream it, be it. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. No better way to celebrate a holy day than with demonstration of ignorance. If you can see the bandwagon, it's too late to get on. If you realized how powerful your thoughts are you would never think another negative thought. If you dwell on what you don't want, you'll get more of it. The only time you were ever at peace in your whole life was when you were dead. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nee1 at worldnet.att.net Thu Jun 27 16:51:42 2002 From: nee1 at worldnet.att.net (Renee Gunn) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:51:42 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Religion in HP References: Message-ID: <009f01c21dfa$eae37580$ac7afea9@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 40462 There are many people in the world who aren't Christian, yet still celebrate Christmas and Easter. They may not celebrate the religious aspects and follow all of the religious rituals or go to church on those holidays, but they still celebrate the holiday itself since it is such a major event across the world. That may be the case here. Plus for those muggle borns, it may be that their family do have a religion. They did not find out until they were 11 that they were wizards and until that time practiced whatever family religion they were taught, and may continue to do so for the purposes of their own beliefs and for their families. Nee Something that has been bothering me for a while: what is everyone's take on religion in the HP wizarding world? They have references to and practice such holidays as Christmas and Easter, yet it doesn't seem to make sense that they would be Christian [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From roeskyee at muohio.edu Thu Jun 27 18:34:16 2002 From: roeskyee at muohio.edu (erniemu03) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 18:34:16 -0000 Subject: (TBAY) The Biggest of the Hedgehogs (WAS Pettigrew, Hagrid, and Voldemort's In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40463 I'm a newbie, and I've been lurking for a little while. I have to admit, I love some of these ever-so-delicious theories and interpretations. Hagrid and Pettigrew as co-conspirators of a sort is intriguing... I only see one problem with the theory that Hagrid has been using Voldemort's wand all those (these??) years. Elkins posted: > >What if Peter *was* hanging around Hagrid's hut in the hopes of > >retrieving voldemort's wand -- not from the Centaurs, but from > >Hagrid himself? and Cindy agreed that not only could Hagrid have picked up Voldemort's wand on the long ago day when he retrieved Harry for Voldemort, but it was this wand he had hidden inside his infamous pink umbrella. While I can immediately latch on to the idea that Hagrid had *someone's* whole and unbroken wand in his umbrella, I have trouble believing it is Voldemort's for one reason. Voldemort gets his wand back and uses it near the end of GoF. When he uses it against Harry's wand, we have the interesting scene with the Priori Incantatem. The spells that reappear are Voldemort's, from before his "fall" and after. There is no indication that any spells Hagrid would have used that wand for also made a reappearance. I tried to overcome this difficulty by rationalizing that maybe only spells performed by the hand holding the wand reappeared during a Priori Incantatem, but Amos Diggory proves that wrong at the start of GoF when he performs the spell on Harry's wand himself. All I can discern from this, then, is that Hagrid may have had a "full" wand in his pink umbrella at some time and he may prove to be evil in the future, but I really do not think that he could have been using Voldemort's wand. -Erin (holding her breath as she sends her first-ever post) From crana at ntlworld.com Thu Jun 27 19:02:55 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:02:55 +0100 Subject: French - Lily's death - Neville - Teacher Hagrid - Portkey Cup - Missing Posts - Xmas - Message-ID: <009101c21e0d$3f823060$5d3468d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40464 Nicole said: "It's obvious to me that JKR speaks at least some French" Yeh, she did a degree in it and is qualified to teach it too :) ---- Richelle said: "I'm also still confused why it was Lily's sacrifice that protected Harry from Quirrell/Voldemort when James also died to protect him" Maybe it was because James would have died anyway but Lily only died because she was trying to exchange her life for Harry's. Which could explain why Voldemort would hesitate to kill her as you also pointed out - he *had* to intent not to kill her, or she wouldn't have died protecting Harry, and so Harry wouldn't have survived the AK, and *there would never have been a Harry Potter series* :) -------- Leanne said: "I'm convinced that Neville Longbottom is / will turn traitor. Possibly he was resposible for his own parents' deaths." Leanne, do you have any ideas on how he would be responsible for them? Do you mean he actually zapped them himself? Or something else? -------- I was thinking about the whole Hagrid and teaching thing, and how even some Anti-Hagrids commented on how in GoF his teaching is improving. I wonder - is there any kind of teacher training in the WW? We know there aren't any universities. Staff seem to be appointed more on life experience eg *ahem* Lockhart, and Moody. Hagrid definitely has lots of experience with magical creatures, but maybe he only gets the opportunity to learn "on the job". Most of the other teachers we have seen have been teaching for years and years; they are obviously going to be better at it than Hagrid. Just look at the other new recruits we've seen: Lupin, Moody and Lockhart. Lockhart was even less of a teacher than Hagrid. Moody carried out the "unforgivable" curses even though it's illegal. Lupin has been criticised on this list for the whole werewolf thing. Maybe we should just cut Hagrid a bit of slack. Even those of you who are teachers and have expressed how your jobs make you even crosser about Hagrid... imagine that you had to start teaching in the same position as him. You'd need time to get good at it too, wouldn't you? And if that's the *only* way to learn - on the job - then Dumbledore can't really be criticised that much for letting Hagrid do so! ---------- Cindy: "And if the Cup were originally enchanted to transport only Harry to the edge of the maze, that would mean the whole Tournament was *rigged*, which isn't very hospitable to the contestants from Beaubatons and Durmstrang." It would also have made the great efforts Crouch!Moody went to to ensure that Harry absolutely was the first to touch the cup quite pointless. He could just have somehow zapped the contestants out the way and unconscious as they approached without having to risk them touching the cup before Harry. ---------------------- Cindy said: "In fact, sometimes my posts get no response *at all* on the list -- like they don't even *exist* or something -- which always makes me wonder if maybe they just didn't make it to the e-mail and digest readers. Or maybe I am the only webview member who can actually *see* my posts or something." I get that, the no responses, but, uh, I just assume they were too boring!! (Which yours are not!Don't get me wrong!) -------------- Rei said: "They have references to and practice such holidays as Christmas and Easter, yet it doesn't seem to make sense that they would be Christian, since in the Bible it was said that "You shall not allow a sorcerer/ess to live." As far as I remember, the only way they celebrate these holidays is no school, presents, a feast etc. They don't have any kind of link between "Christmas" and "Birth of Christ" etc as far as I can see. I think it's just that, well, *everyone* gets Christmas holidays. And most people, even if they aren't religious, give presents and have Christmas dinner. -------- Richelle said: "Yes, he's after Harry. But to me it suggests that Voldemort actually preferred that Lily live, rather than that he didn't care. His "Stand aside you silly girl, stand aside now" comment leads me to believe he rathered her to survive. We have affirmed that he didn't think about a countercurse if she died saving Harry (on his own admission in GoF), so what other reason? I can even stretch it to say "silly girl" could be a term of endearment." Ooh - I like that. Maybe she was a "silly girl" for running off with James Potter. Daddy!Voldemort couldn't have his daughter - who he wanted to train up as a lure to the Dark side? - smitten with this very *Good* man.. and their baby? Well, he had the Potter blood... so he had to go! Further support for this theory: Voldemort could also be therefore related to Petunia and Dudley! (err!) :) Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Thu Jun 27 19:14:11 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:14:11 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Grandpa Voldemort In-Reply-To: <3034175.1025197676551.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> References: <3034175.1025197676551.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> Message-ID: <19163096784.20020627121411@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40465 Thursday, June 27, 2002, 10:07:56 AM, rvotaw at i-55.com wrote: ri5c> There's something about the green eyes. That much is certain. Slythern=green, ri5c> Riddle=Slytherin. JKR has affirmed that something major will be revealed about ri5c> Lily's past in Books 5-7, and that the fact that Harry had her green eyes will ri5c> be VERY important. I agree -- I think there's something very special about Lily we don't know about yet... Something special that is the reason that (A) Voldy knew killing Lily would have reprecussions, he just didn't think it would be as massive as his losing his body (I just don't believe he had sentimential feelings for someone who from his POV was both a "Muggle" and a "spare"); and that (B) Using Harry's blood for rebirthing is a fatal blunder, Harry's blood containing a part of Lily's "specialness", whatever is was. And I still believe that Firenze's speech about the purity of unicorns and the heinousness of killing one is the clue -- Not that I think Lily was literally a unicorn, or unicorn-animagus, but I think there's a currently unknown connection... -- Dave From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Thu Jun 27 19:21:06 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 12:21:06 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Religion in HP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <18863512604.20020627122106@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40466 Thursday, June 27, 2002, 9:43:30 AM, reincineir wrote: r> ... in the Bible it r> was said that "You shall not allow a sorcerer/ess to live." This is actually a mistranslation... (See below.) r> Perhaps r> wizards are Christian, and regard sorcery as different from wizarding r> magic (perhaps sorcery is what the Dark Wizards practice?) Nope, it's not that -- The King James version says "Witch". Fact is, it's in any case a mistranslation -- The original word is "poisoner", not witch/wizard/sorceress or whatever. -- Dave From crana at ntlworld.com Thu Jun 27 19:19:34 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:19:34 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Grandpa Voldemort References: <3034175.1025197676551.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> <19163096784.20020627121411@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <00a501c21e0f$92e32e60$5d3468d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40467 Dave said: "(A) Voldy knew killing Lily would have reprecussions, he just didn't think it would be as massive as his losing his body (I just don't believe he had sentimential feelings for someone who from his POV was both a "Muggle" and a "spare")." Hmm... I think if Voldemort had had kids, he wouldn't have chosen a Muggle - wouldn't that just be disgusting to him? Unless he raped a Muggle woman or something - some people have suggested there are overtones of Muggle rape in GoF. I could see it as more likely that it was some witch, maybe besotted by the young Riddle, but who he just used & threw away. Then the young Voldemort!Baby got handed over to foster parents.. who also adopted... Petunia! Thereby making it very nicely so that Petunia and her horrible son AREN'T related to Harry, which I would like very much. Perhaps part of the reason she resents the "burden" of looking after him is that she always suspected that she and Lily weren't true sisters, and therefore not only is she having to look after this little brat dumped on her, but he isn't *really* even her nephew. Maybe. Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From crana at ntlworld.com Thu Jun 27 19:42:44 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:42:44 +0100 Subject: Humour Message-ID: <000c01c21e12$d06f60c0$5d3468d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40468 What are everyone's favourite funny parts in HP? I ask, because I have just been rereading the books... and some of the things I had forgotten made me laugh out loud. For example..."Make way for the heir of Slytherin! Seriously evil wizard coming through!" and when Harry makes Dudley think he is trying to put a spell on the hedge: "Squiggly Wiggly!" Any additions? If you think it's too OT, email me off list.. but hey... as Harry says at the end of GoF... we're going to need humour:) Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Thu Jun 27 19:45:20 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:45:20 -0000 Subject: (TBAY) The Biggest of the Hedgehogs In-Reply-To: <00bf01c21dea$649def60$0464a8c0@dellcpi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40469 Cindy proposed that Ever-So-Evil Hagrid was in league with Fake!Moody, saying: >> Aurors practically *wiped out* the Giants.... There ought to be no reason for Hagrid to be a fan of *real* Moody. Hagrid doesn't even applaud for Moody when Moody first enters the entrance hall and is introduced to the students. But somehow by the time of the first task, Hagrid and Moody are *drinking buddies*. Why? << But Leon objected that Hagrid *did* clap for Fake!Moody: > Sorry, just read that chapter to the kids last night. Hagrid and Dumbledore are the only two who clap for Moody. Everyone else is too shocked to move.< Ah, even better! Hagrid was in on Fake!Moody's plot from the very beginning! More from Cindy: >> No, the only explanation is that Hagrid is busy trudging back onto the Hogwarts grounds after watching Harry's duel with Voldemort. Hagrid was right there in the circle with the other DEs.<< To which Leon replied: > Um... forgive me for saying this but, how exactly would Harry have missed that one? In the words of Harry Chapin, "6,000 munchkins and a troll".< No problem! Hagrid took a quick drink of Diminutive Decoction or something (not Shrinking Solution, that makes you *younger*.) By the way, can someone put a definition of "Hedgehog" into this thread? I think I know what it means, but I'm not sure. -- Judy From chetah27 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 27 20:07:30 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:07:30 -0000 Subject: Humour In-Reply-To: <000c01c21e12$d06f60c0$5d3468d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40470 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rosie" wrote: > What are everyone's favourite funny parts in HP? Oh, I can't remember them all off the top of my head. Basically anything Gred and Forge say/do is hilarious. But one particular scene always makes me laugh... the Valentine's Day speech Lockhart gives in CoS. Professor "Sly Dog" Flitwick. =P And just this one line.. "Snape was looking as though the first person to ask him for a love potion would be force fed posion."(that comes from my memory, so might not be completely accurate). Lol, everytime I read that I picture Alan Rickman looking particuarly sour and Snape-like(I hope they show this scene in the movie). And just a mention that Snape might even be thinking about brewing up love potions...lol. JKR has a great sense of humor. =) ~Aldrea, humming "His eyes are as green as a fresh-pickled toad, his hair as dark as a blackboard" to herself. From opaldragonfly at yahoo.com Thu Jun 27 20:13:35 2002 From: opaldragonfly at yahoo.com (Karen Franklin) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:13:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] HPforGrownups: Message from the Moderators In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020627201335.62039.qmail@web13205.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40471 --- plinsenmayer wrote: > > HPforGrownups is hoping to sponsor (or partially > sponsor) a HP event > in 2003 or 2004. We would be accomplishing this via > a non-profit > corporation, which might act as sole or partial > sponsor of a number of > HP events in coming years. > > We are asking anyone with the following areas of > expertise to contact > the Moderators if they are interested in > participating in the planning > or if they could simply be available to answer some > specific > questions: > > > b. Anyone with experience forming or operating or > serving on the > Board of Directors of a non-profit corporation. > > > d. Anyone in academia who would be interested in > advising the > conference planners or serving as a liaision between > the planning > group(s) and the academic community. > > If you have any of the above expertise or background > and wouldn't mind > answering some questions or want to become involved > in planning these > events, please contact the Moderators at: > > mods at hpfgu.org.uk > > Thanks! > > The Magical Moderator Team for HPforGrownups > > Dear Moderators: I have experience in the above areas. I am a retired college English/Literature/Rhetoric and Composition instructor (also teaching certified in grades 7-12). (I included Harry Potter and the SStone in my Children's Literature course's curriculum as soon as it came out and currently run the online The Symbolism Course on multiple meanings in HP books.) I also served on a School Board for fifteen years; for twelve of those I was President or Vice-President of the board. I am not "technically literate" since I learn as I go; I am more of an idea person and written communication is fun for me! If I can be of any help to you in this endeavor, please feel free to contact me at the above address, or at kaf4horses at aol.com. Karen Franklin aka Prof. Opal Dragonfly __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Thu Jun 27 20:29:58 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:29:58 -0000 Subject: Grandpa Voldemort In-Reply-To: <3034175.1025197676551.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40472 Ronale7 writes: > >I believe Voldemort is Harry's paternal grandfather.<< And Richelle replied: > I still disagree .... I am still convinced...that Voldemort/Riddle is Harry's maternal grandfather. < Ok, we'll compromise. Voldemort is the father of James *and* Lily. He wanted to kill Harry because he was ashamed of his children's accidental incestuous relationship. (No, I'm not serious.) There's a possibility that Voldemort is Harry's grandfather. However, I think the much more likely possibility is that Harry is the descendent of *Gryffindor*, and that this is why Voldemort wanted him dead. Yes, I think there is a prophecy concerning Harry, but that doesn't mean he's Voldemort's descendent. Could Harry be descended from both Slytherin *and* Gryffindor? He could, which would explain the Sorting Hat's difficulties in placing him. But, being descended from Slytherin really isn't neccessary to explain to explain most features of the plot. As for Voldemort's willingness to spare Lily, several people here have independently come up with the theory that Voldemort or one of the DEs had a romantic interest in her. (These theories are collectively referred to by the acronym MAKE ME BARF.) In fact, Elkins just brought that group of theories up again. -- Judy Serenity From kkearney at students.miami.edu Thu Jun 27 19:01:08 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:01:08 -0000 Subject: Religion in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40473 Rei asked: >...what is everyone's > take on religion in the HP wizarding world? They have references to > and practice such holidays as Christmas and Easter, yet it doesn't > seem to make sense that they would be Christian.... > All of the normal things they deal with every day- giants, vampires, > magic itself- are supernatural in Muggle eyes, which perhaps makes > wizards seem beyond Muggle religion as we know it... but do wizards > have their own concept of the supernatural themselves?...Does it seem >like wizards would > have/believe in angels? Demons? Gods? I agree with the other reply that many wizards raised in the muggle world would practice the religion of their families. In addition, although it's never referenced directly, I see no reason why wizards wouldn't practice the same religions as us muggles. As far as we have been told, wizards, with the possible exception of Voldemort, have not achieved immortality. Therefore, the need for some explantation of afterlife is still present. As is the need for a moral guidelines. Religion does not center around the supernatural, although that is often incorporated, but rather around the question of why we are here, what we should do while we are here, and where we go when we no longer are (yeah, that wasn't a run-on :) ). Wizards don't seem to have concrete answers to these questions any more than muggles do. - Corinth, once again treading the on/off topic line. From roeskyee at muohio.edu Thu Jun 27 19:22:01 2002 From: roeskyee at muohio.edu (erniemu03) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:22:01 -0000 Subject: Grandpa Voldemort (but really Unicorns) In-Reply-To: <19163096784.20020627121411@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40474 Dave wrote: >And I still believe that Firenze's speech > about the purity of unicorns and the heinousness of killing one is the > clue -- Not that I think Lily was literally a unicorn, or > unicorn-animagus, but I think there's a currently unknown connection... I've also heard mention before that the purity and innocence of unicorns, as well as the observation "Always the innocent are the first victims. So it has been for ages past, so it is now," by Ronan the centaur could imply the fate of certain characters. After all, the only characters we know of in the book with unicorn hair as the core of their wands are Cedric Diggory and Ron Weasley... and we all know what happened to Cedric. What might this mean about the fate of Ron? I don't know... any opinions? -Erin From doca75 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 27 20:13:17 2002 From: doca75 at hotmail.com (willa_benson) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:13:17 -0000 Subject: Humour In-Reply-To: <000c01c21e12$d06f60c0$5d3468d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40475 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rosie" wrote: > What are everyone's favourite funny parts in HP? I ask, because I have just been rereading the books... and some of the things I had forgotten made me laugh out loud. For example..."Make way for the heir of Slytherin! Seriously evil wizard coming through!" and when Harry makes Dudley think he is trying to put a spell on the hedge: "Squiggly Wiggly!" > > Any additions? If you think it's too OT, email me off list.. but hey... as Harry says at the end of GoF... we're going to need humour:) > > Rosie > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] I think the HP books are hilarious. I've never posted here before, but I just couldn't resist adding one of my favorite excerpts: " Mr. Mooney presents his compliments to Professor Snape, and begs him to keep his abnormally large nose out of other people's business." "Mr. Prongs agrees with Mr. Moony and would like to add that Professor Snape is an ugle git." "Mr. Padfoot would like to register his astonishment that an idiot like that ever became a professor." "Mr. Wormtail bids Professor Snape good day, and advises him to wash his hair , the slimeball." Willa From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Thu Jun 27 20:42:20 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:42:20 -0000 Subject: TBAY Cruciatus Makes You Stronger! (in the Safe House, with lots of canon) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40476 Pip is in the Safe House, fiddling with the new Audioscope headphones (an invention of her own) and overhears Cindy making the following statement. "Torture is the ultimate high for Evil Overlords, don't you think?" Pip takes the Audioscope headphones off, sighs deeply and turns to Sneeky, the Safe House-Elf. "Sneeky, have we managed to arrange that Portkey on the Big Bang yet? I think it's time Captain Cindy had a little debriefing." "Sneeky has arranged the Portkey for Captain Cindy, Mistress Pip. Sneeky has made it a cigarette end. Sneeky thinks that Captain Cindy will not allow such a thing on her deck, Captain Cindy will be throwing it overboard." A faint, tinny sound is still coming out of the Audioscope - Cindy is still ranting. Pip says "Wonderful, Sneeky," quickly puts the Audioscope headphones back on, and trains the Omnioculars on Captain Cindy, replaying to the start of the paragraph. "Torture. It's the last thing Voldemort thinks about when he lays his slimy head on his pillow, and it's the first thing he thinks about when he turns off his alarm clock in the morning. He's addicted; he can't help himself; he can't get enough. Torture is better than killing, better than controlling. Torture is the ultimate high for Evil Overlords, don't you think?" At this point Captain Cindy spots the cigarette end on her clean deck, and gives a howl of disgust. She looks around for her crew, but currently they all appear to be fighting off a bunch of pirates trying to steal more can(n)nons. "Ha!", she says, "trust pirates to be untidy smokers!". She reaches down, grabs the end, and immediately feels as though a hook just behind her navel had been suddenly jerked irresistably forwards. Speeding forward in a howl of wind and swirling colour, her feet slam into the ground. As she falls forward she notices that she is now in a large, comfortable looking room with lots of deep leather armchairs. The pipsqueak is just taking off some headphones, and as Cindy tries to get her balance back, Pip goes over to one of the armchairs. It has a small table next to it, containing a pot of tea, two teacups (with saucers), and a plate of digestive biscuits [1]. "Cindy!" says Pip. "So nice of you to drop in. Just a little debriefing. Welcome to the Safe House. I'm sure you'll be glad to know there are no *real* Graveyards in this district, and Cruciatus is regarded as strictly Unforgivable. Sneeky, if you could just take the Portkey away until we've finished? I don't think we want to have Cindy doing an unscheduled Potter, do we? And could you put the two milk bottles on the step? Thanks." Pip pours herself a cup of tea. "Tea, Cindy? Or do you prefer coffee?" "WhatinheckamIdoinghere!" snarls Cindy, "and no, I DON'T want a cup of tea!" "Oh, if you insist." says Pip. "Just a little debriefing. This is the scary part of the bay, you know, where all the spies and conspiracy theorists hang out. But, if you insist on starting the debriefing immediately, then -" Pip clicks her fingers, and Cindy's voice plays back from a concealed speaker. "See, in the back of Voldemort's feeble little mind, he knows that Cruciatus will make Harry stronger. But Voldemort has the weakness that has plagued Evil Overlords since the dawn of time -- he can't resist an opportunity to torture someone. And who can blame him?" Pip shakes her head sadly. "Cindy. Cindy. Still insisting that Cruciatus makes you stronger. Which double-agent fed you that little bit of misinformation? Voldemort can't resist torturing someone? Oh, dear. What about his behaviour to Cedric in the Graveyard scene? Does Cedric get tortured before he's killed? No. Voldemort doesn't want to waste time getting off on torturing Cedric 'spare' Diggory when he could be ordering Wormtail to capture Harry Potter. No, with Cedric it's a quick AK without even a hint of Cruciatus (P. 553 GoF UK hardback)" Cindy scowls: "Yeah, well, Cedric. I don't think Voldemort even really notices Cedric. Cedric obviously isn't his type. But in the Graveyard itself, if I'm reading the, uh, sex thread correctly, Voldemort is experiencing some serious *passion* there, which he finds downright irresistable. He just plain loses his head when he has been aroused in this fashion; after all, it has been a *long* time since Voldemort's last time torturing someone while not in slimy baby form. " "Ah," says Pip darkly. "Yes. The Sex Thread. Well, I suppose one does have to be prepared to go, uh, under-the-covers occasionally in undercover work. But really, while there is evidence of arousal, so to speak, I don't think there is any particular evidence of uh, loss of control. I pointed this out [in a slightly different context] in post # 40044 (Spying Game II)" Pip clicks her fingers again, but this time Pip's own recorded voice issues forth, accompanied by quotations from can(n)on which appear as illuminated writing on the wall. " Who gets punished during the speech? Pettigrew/Wormtail, who we *know* spent 12 years hiding as a rat rather than run back to Voldemort. Wormtail gets a tough deal during this scene. He gets to cut off his own arm, gets slammed against a tombstone: "Wormtail, who was lifted off the ground and thrown against the headstone where Harry was tied." ( p.559, GoF UK hardback ) Add this to Voldemort's treatment of Wormtail in Chapter One, and you rather get the impression Voldemort doesn't forgive lightly. Who else? Avery. Avery, whose famous 'crisis of nerve' probably suggests a genuinely guilty conscience. Avery, who interrupts Voldemort's speech, he's so terrified. Avery, who is 'trembling from head to foot'. ( p. 562, GoF UK hardback ) Avery, who gets a solid blast of Crucio, and then gets told: "You ask for forgiveness? I do not forgive....I want thirteen years' repayment before I forgive you. " ( p. 563, GoF UK hardback) Who else of the supposedly unanimous-in-their-disloyalty DE's gets whacked around the graveyard? Err... that's it, really. Still, I suppose torturing people can get a bit boring. :-)" Pip stares gravely at Cindy. "Since Voldemort at this point then concerns himself with giving Wormtail his new silver hand, rather than asking one of the DE's for a cigarette so he can have a post torture smoke, I think we have to conclude that he doesn't find the return of his full torture powers *that* irresistable. "Er, yeah, so, ok the DE's aren't really what he gets off on either. Ok, so he does seem able to stop torturing people after he gets his new body. But see, he doesn't experience the, uh, full effect..." Cindy pauses, suddenly aware that Pip is looking at her with one of those 'keep talking, because I'm trying to see how big a hole you can dig yourself into' looks. "Uh, he doesn't experience the full, *uncontrollable* effect until he gets to Harry. So his stronger side tells him *not* to torture Harry, but he's just not thinking straight and he loses sight of his own best interests." "I see." says Pip. "You have been reading certain threads, haven't you? Do you think we ought to mention this weakness of Voldemort's to Dumbledore? Is it just Harry, do you think, or would it work with all boys of a certain age? Not that I'm terribly certain Dumbledore would use the information; I know I've been accused of turning him a little grey, but I don't think even greynightgowned!Snape would consider that one for part of the 'weaken and destroy Voldemort' Plan. Not even if you designated it 'Plan XXXX'. Cindy gulps, but destroyer captains are a breed noted for the bull- headed stubborness that will fight a battle to the end. She attacks back bravely. "Besides, Voldemort figures that, no matter how strong Harry is, he still can't block AK. No one can. So what's the harm in having a little bit of *fun*. Geez, think how *impressed* the DEs would be with Voldemort's bravery, his confidence in his own power, if Voldemort *strengthens* his enemy before killing him. Oooh, that just about gives me *goosebumps* just to think of it. ;-)" Pip pauses to think that she doesn't really want to mention what *else* sailors are noted for. She sighs, clicks her fingers, and produces another excerpt from post # 40044 "Voldemort's Avada Kedavra is timed carefully, and sent when Harry has just launched his own attack. 'Voldemort was ready. As Harry shouted " Expelliarmus!", Voldemort cried "Avada Kedavra!" ' (p. 575, GoF UK Hardback )." "So Voldemort thinks Harry can't block an AK, does he?" Pip says " Why, then, is he so careful to launch one ONLY when Harry has launched his own attack? To counter-attack, rather than attack and allow Harry to make a blocking defence? And what about all the other people in the Wizarding World who so foolishly made Cruciatus an Unforgivable! " She pauses, and takes a thoughtful sip of her tea. "Goodness, it was just because they don't want the WW full of incredibly powerful wizards - silly me, for thinking otherwise." Cindy shakes her head violently. "No, no, no. It's unforgivable because the larger wizarding world doesn't *know* it makes wizards stronger, see. How would they? Those do-gooders banned Cruciatus because it *looks* so bad in application. They never reached the larger question of whether it might have some useful side effects." Cindy nods with deep satisfaction, thinking that she's *destroyed* Spy Game II without even breaking a sweat. Pip takes another sip of tea and contemplates her digestive biscuit thoughtfully. Then she looks up at the ceiling. "Let me see, now. Bertha just overdosed on Cruciatus, you say. " Cindy nods firmly. "And any super strength the Longbottoms now have in their padded cell at St. Mungo's is assumed to be purely due to their complete insanity, and has never been connected to the Cruciatus effect." Cindy nods a little less firmly, not entirely sure where this is leading. "And when Fake!Moody remarks that Cruciatus 'was very popular once' (GoF p. 190 UK hardback) then we're to assume that *no-one* who ever got a blast noticed a sudden increase in their power? That it was never tried on, say, a Squib, even though Filch in CoS is convinced that Mrs Norris was attacked *because* he was a Squib (CoS Ch. 9 p. 109 UK paperback) and Tom Riddle talks about attacking the *Squibs* cat? (CoS p. 229). No Squibs suddenly noticed that they could now do magic? Nothing?" Pip continues: "No one ever notices anything about this Cruciatus side-effect; despite torture being so common that Bill Weasley describes the lies the DE's all told as being about Voldemort 'forcing them to kill and torture people' (GoF UK hardback p. 128)? But in all this, er, orgy of torture nobody wonders about *that* particular side effect? My goodness, how unobservant good wizards are." Pip leans back and crunches her digestive biscuit. "Cindy, I have no philosophical objection to Big Bangs. In fact, provided they're preceded by careful plotting, the bigger the bang, the better. And, ideally, of course, a true Big Bang should send you straight back to can(n)on, trying to find out the precise details of the deception practiced upon you, the deception that makes a Bang such a stunning surprise. But I'm afraid 'Cruciatus makes you stronger!' doesn't make a contribution. It's misinformation, leading you down a false path. It's designed to make our agents feel that Cruciatus is no bad thing, that they needn't bother avoiding it. Which is exactly what our opponents want, of course." Cindy stands up, and stomps over to the window, sulking. Pip strolls over, and gazes out at the bay. "It's quite all right, Cindy, we all of us make mistakes. Personally, I'm expecting a howler from the Mods any minute because I forgot to install some can(n)on when I set this place up. I've always considered you one of our best Captains; I don't think one little blind alley is *too* serious." Cindy glares. Then points dramatically out of the window, narrowly missing Pip's ear. "WHERE is my ship? Is there a SHIP in sight out there? How can you have Theory Bay without SHIP's! You haven't even got a dinghy in this part of the bay." Just then a periscope breaks through the surface of the water. Cindy stares at it incredulously. "Submarines." says Pip briefly [for once]. "Elkins suggested them, and I thought 'WHAT a good idea.' " Cindy looks completely disgusted. "Have you got a return Portkey for me? I would like to return to my ship. My floating-on-top-of-the water ship, if you DON'T mind." "Certainly. Sneeky!" Pip turns round, and discovers that, like all good House-Elfs, Sneeky has anticipated her and brought the return Portkey. Sneeky also takes the opportunity to unobtrusively slip a scrap of paper into Pip's hand, before placing the Portkey on the table for Cindy to use. "I think you'll find, Captain, that this will return you to the deck of your ship" says Pip, smiling pleasantly. Cindy sniffs, touches the Portkey, and vanishes. Pip looks at the scrap of paper in her hand. It reads: 'Cindy (hoping Pip will just concede the point and offer up an Unconditional Surrender)' Pip looks blank for a moment. "Sneeky, have you any idea what 'unconditional surrender' means?" "Oh, yes, Mistress Pip, Sneeky knows that one. Sneeky knows that 'unconditional surrender' is when you pretends to surrender, and then organises undercover resistance movements and guerilla warfares." "Oh." Pip brightens. "Sounds like it might be interesting to try some day." She strolls over to the Ommioculars. "Cindy should be arriving just about now..." She adjusts them carefully, and puts on the Audioscope headphones. A large splash is heard. "Tut, tut, silly me. I forgot that the return journey is to just *outside* the deck of her ship." Pip sighs. " Still, with the type of posts she seems to have been reading lately, a nice cold bath should do her a LOT of good." Pip [1] Digestive biscuits are large plain cookies, known for going nicely with tea. You can use them for dunking in the tea, as well. From bard7696 at aol.com Thu Jun 27 20:46:41 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:46:41 -0000 Subject: How much does Snape know? was Wormtail's Name In the Confession (WAS: Spying Game...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40477 Marina wrote: > > No, it's third-person limited POV. And except for the opening > chapter, where we get a glimpse into Frank Bryce, the third person > whose limited POV we're getting is Harry. We see only what he sees, > we hear only what he hears, we learn only what he learns and when he > learns it. His thoughts and feelings are the only ones we're privvy > to, and we see everything the way he sees it. > > > > > Here is the quote, from page 712 of the American edition of GoF: > > > > Snape had not yelled or jumped backward, but the look on his face > was > > one of mingled fury and horror. > > > > "Him!" he snarled, staring at Sirius, whose face showed equal > dislike. > > > > Harry is not interpreting his facial expressions. An all-knowing > > narrator is telling us what the facial expressions were. > > The narration is telling us what Harry saw, filtered through the lens > of Harry's point of view. Harry looked at Snape's expression (which > is the only reason why the narration can tell us about it), and saw it > as "fury and horror". The other characters present may have see it as > something entirely different; we just don't know. > I see your point and as I reflect, I have mislabeled it. But, in a cursory re-read of the passages, I see differences in what is said. Page 712: "the look on his face was one of mingled fury and horror." later on the page: "Harry thought Dumbledore was asking for a near miracle." There is a clear distinction between what Harry thinks and what the third-person thinks or sees. But, as I further reflect, your characterization is much more accurate than mine, which was inaccurate. Regardless, I do not think there is a twist lurking in this "fury and horror" thing, even if it is from Harry's point of view. The twists in the novels have always come in previously unrevealed facts that throw characters' ACTIONS, not facial expressions, into different lights. Examples: Snape wasn't trying to kill Harry; he was trying to save him. But he still hated him. Ginny wasn't nervous about finding Percy kissing his girlfriend. She was nervous about being the heir of Slytherin. But she was still nervous. I think we have to accept the "fury and horror" as face value. What he's furious and horrified about is not yet clear. But the text is rarely, if ever, misleading about what people are feeling. If it's an emotion Harry can't place, JKR says so: "His expression was difficult to read" referring to Snape on page 720 "His black eyes glittered strangely" page 713 I think Harry got it right. Snape was really ticked. Darrin -- Please accept my apology for the mistake From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu Jun 27 21:47:19 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 21:47:19 -0000 Subject: How much does Snape know? was Wormtail's Name In the Confession (WAS: Spying Game...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40478 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > Marina wrote: > > The narration is telling us what Harry saw, filtered through the > lens > > of Harry's point of view. Harry looked at Snape's expression (which > > is the only reason why the narration can tell us about it), and saw > it > > as "fury and horror". The other characters present may have see it > as > > something entirely different; we just don't know. > > > > > I see your point and as I reflect, I have mislabeled it. But, in a > cursory re-read of the passages, I see differences in what is said. > > Page 712: "the look on his face was one of mingled fury and horror." > > later on the page: "Harry thought Dumbledore was asking for a near > miracle." > > There is a clear distinction between what Harry thinks and what the > third-person thinks or sees. But, as I further reflect, your > characterization is much more accurate than mine, which was > inaccurate. It's true that the language in the first example is the same as it would've been for omniscient narration. But it's often seen in third-person limited too, because it would be cumbersome and distracting to qualify every single piece of description with "Harry thought" and "Harry believed" and "It looked to Harry as if." That's one of those things that makes POV such a drag for writers. :-) > > Regardless, I do not think there is a twist lurking in this "fury and > horror" thing, even if it is from Harry's point of view. Oh, I don't expect a twist, either. Harry may not be 100% perfect in his observations, but he's not blind or stupid either. If he reads Snape's expression as "mingled fury and horror," I think it's safe to say that Snape is looking thoroughly ticked. If he'd been grinning from ear to ear with happiness, Harry would've picked up on that, and if his expression had been too difficult to interpret, Harry would've noted that too (as he did later in the book). But we're talking nuances here. Naama was arguing, I believe, that "fury and horror" must mean that Snape believed Sirius to be a traitor. I was just pointing out that even if you accept that argument (which I don't), that doesn't mean Snape really believed this, it only means that Harry interpreted Snape's anger that way. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From sanda at fx.ro Thu Jun 27 21:39:43 2002 From: sanda at fx.ro (Mariuca Mihalache) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 00:39:43 +0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] French Derivatives & Translation Issues References: Message-ID: <008901c21e23$c0d88860$570207c3@Adi> No: HPFGUIDX 40479 I have only read the books in the Romanian translation so far: many of the names were translated as well (probably for the readers to better grasp the clues about the characters' personality), including Voldemort and Malfoy. Voldemort was rendered as "Capdemort", which, although bearing a resemblance of form to the original, has the (quite?) different meaning of "skull", litterally "head of a dead person". Malfoy was translated with the equivalent of "badfaith" in Romanian. While this may be justified for the reason I mentioned, I nevertheless think that the translations lack the "flavour" of the originals. I am a translator, too, and the way I'd have done it would have been to give the meanings in a footnote and preserve the original names. I would be very interested to hear from non-native English speakers how other HP translations managed this kind of thing! If you think that would be too boring for the native speakers, please write to my personal address! Mariuca [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Jun 27 22:17:11 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:17:11 -0000 Subject: Cruciatus and Imperius (Some TBAY), Dark Magic Power Boosts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40480 I was wondering about Voldemort's assumption that Crouch Jr. would indeed agree to play the rather significant role that voldemort had allocated to him in his Big Plan. Having pointed out that Voldemort first returns to England, then travels to the Crouch residence, then Imperio's Crouch Sr., and only *then* asks young Barty if he is willing to serve, I wondered: > (It does make you wonder, though, doesn't it, what Voldemort would > have done if Crouch had said "no?" I mean, *was* there a Plan B?) Cindy replied: > Plan B? Well, let's see. Crouch Jr. might say something like, "You > know, I've been couped up under this cloak a long time and I was > thinking of maybe taking some time *off*, if that's all right with > you, Voldemort." > Mmm, nah. Not unless Crouch Jr. was hoping to do a dance with the > Cruciatus Curse, figuring it might help clear his mind or > something. Heh. Well, I admit that it wasn't too *likely* a possibility. But still, if you think about it, Voldemort's plan really does count on Crouch Jr. for quite a lot, doesn't it? It doesn't just rely on him *professing* his loyalty. I mean, given the circumstances, of *course* Crouch Jr's answer to "will you serve me once more?" was going to be: "Yes, master, delighted to, just tell me what you want me to do." But the plan doesn't just rely on Crouch's lip service. It relies on him being loyal enough to undertake a difficult and dangerous mission without scarpering the instant that Voldemort isn't watching him. It relies on him being competent enough to rig the Tournament. And it relies on him being a clever enough actor to pull off that Moody masquerade for an *entire year.* It also relies on him not having been reduced to a state of weak- willed drooling idiocy from having first nearly died in Azkaban, and then having spent over ten years under the Imperius Curse. I mean, that was really quite a lot to gamble on, don't you think? When all that Voldemort really *knew* about Crouch's current status was that he was being held prisoner in his father's house, and that he still professed loyalty to the cause? Voldemort travels all the way back to *England* on the basis of this information? Geez. It's almost enough to make me want to run out and buy myself one of those magic dishwashers. They may not run on my favorite thematic engines, and they do rather clash with all of my genre expectations, and George really doesn't care for them very much. But hey. At least they don't leave *spots* all over the crystal. I also found myself wondering about Crouch Jr's growing ability to throw off the Imperius Curse for short periods of time in the months leading up to the QWC. I suggested that this might be related in some way to Voldemort's return to England, that perhaps Voldemort's newly embodied state and physical proximity might in some metaphysical way have strengthened the will of those servants bound to him by the Dark Mark. Cindy wrote: > But how about an alternative theory? A theory that explains all of > the pesky, FLINT-y problems with the Imperius Curse? How about if > the Imperius Curse is only as strong as the wizard casting it? I'm sure that the Imperius Curse *is* only as strong as the wizard casting it. After all, the Cruciatus Curse certainly seems to be. Compare Cedric's reaction to being hit by Krum's Cruciatus, for example, to Harry's reaction to Voldemort's Cruciatus in the graveyard. Krum's does not seem to be all that powerful. It certainly doesn't look as if it was a pleasant experience for poor Cedric, mind, but it doesn't incapacitate him to nearly the same degree as Voldemort's Cruciatus does Harry, or Wormtail, or even the unfortunate Mr. Avery. > How about if the Imperius Curse is a classic struggle of wills, a > clash of power between the controller and victim. Again, I think that this certainly is the case. And there is also evidence to suggest that ones ability to resist increases the more incentive one has to do so. Crouch Sr's ability to resist the Curse seems to have grown stronger and stronger as the date of the planned attack on Harry Potter drew near. I had always assumed, at any rate, that the growing urgency of the need to warn Dumbledore was what had strengthened his will to resist. I had also assumed that Crouch Jr's ability to fight it off at the QWC was in part due to all of the things going on there that just Pissed Him OFF. Lucius Malfoy in the Top Box, being buttered up by Fudge about his donations to St. *Mungos,* of all things. That conversation between Harry and Winky, about *freedom,* of all things. And of course, that tantalizing wand, right in front of his very face. > After all, Mulciber specialized in the Imperius Curse. If all > Imperius Curses are the same, why have someone specialize in it? I don't think that they are all the same. I agree with you that the stronger the caster, the stronger the spell. I also agree with Marina that the stronger the will, the stronger the spell (or the chance of resisting it). In other words, to be very very good at Imperius, you want to have two things: a strong will, and a good deal of expertise. To resist it, you want to have one (or both) of two things: a strong will, or a freakish inborn talent for it. > As far as Crouch Jr. goes, he didn't really get stronger during all > those years under the cloak, under this theory. Crouch *Sr.* was > getting *weaker*, that's what was going on. Youth will be served, eh? This reminds me very much of a question that somebody (Judy, perhaps?) brought up quite some time ago. Just what *did* old Crouch think was going to happen to his son once he passed away, anyway? Children do, after all, generally manage to outlive their parents. > Crouch Sr. was getting more and more discouraged by his failure to > win become Minister of Magic, becoming bitter from being shunted > aside and forced to work with the likes of Ludo Bagman. And Crouch > Sr. was just plain growing older. All of that made young Crouch > *relatively* stronger compared with his father, I think, not > stronger overall. Mmmmm. Possibly. Possibly. Although Crouch still had it in him to throw off his own Imperius there at the end, didn't he? And it still seems a remarkable coincidence to me that Crouch Jr's new-found resistance would seem to coincide so very neatly to Voldemort's return to an embodied state. > Cindy (who thinks Pip and her MAGIC DISHWASHER will *not* like the > idea that Cruciatus makes a wizard stronger) Well, no, Cindy. She won't. That, you see, is because Pip -- with or without her MAGIC DISHWASHER in tow -- is not utterly *deranged.* I, however, am. I am therefore willing to entertain the notion, but only because it has entertained *me.* Tit for tat, you know. Turnabout is fair play. Ah-hah! I see it now! *That's* why Pettigrew let Crouch Sr. escape! He knew, you see, that the day was fast approaching when he would need to deal with all of those other Death Eaters, right? So he wanted to be sure that this time around, he'd really be able to *compete.* And that's why he was so distressed when Voldemort threatened to feed him to the snake, see. 'Cause that wasn't what he was after at *all.* He wanted a good long bout of Cruciatus, that's what he wanted. And hey, he got it eventually, right? And it also occurs to me that this might put a brand new spin on Charis Julia's "Fourth Man With Crucio Competition," which suggests that the DEs all compete to try to get their master to punish them because it's just so *macho.* It's not a matter of macho. It's not a matter of macho at all. It's a matter of pure and simple self- interest, is what it is. They all *know,* you see, that What Doesn't Kill You Makes You Stronger, and so they're just trying to get the advantage whenever they indulge themselves in Stupid Minion Errors. Okay. There. I've entertained it. It's still an utterly ludicrous notion, but I have at least been willing to entertain it. -- Elkins From divaclv at aol.com Thu Jun 27 22:24:54 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:24:54 -0000 Subject: Religion in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40481 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "reincineir" wrote: > Something that has been bothering me for a while: what is everyone's > take on religion in the HP wizarding world? They have references to > and practice such holidays as Christmas and Easter, yet it doesn't > seem to make sense that they would be Christian, since in the Bible it > was said that "You shall not allow a sorcerer/ess to live." Perhaps > wizards are Christian, and regard sorcery as different from wizarding > magic (perhaps sorcery is what the Dark Wizards practice?) and thus > abide by that rule by hunting out the practitioners of sorcery... but > that seems like a stretch, and wizards on the whole seem to be a very > pragmatic people. Actually, since Christmas and Easter are, in addition to their religious connotations, rather major secular celebrations as well, there's no reason to believe that enjoying those celebrations makes the wizards Christian. And since there are numerous interpretations of Biblical passage, there's no reason to assume that being a wizard excludes one from being a Christian. > All of the normal things they deal with every day- giants, vampires, > magic itself- are supernatural in Muggle eyes, which perhaps makes > wizards seem beyond Muggle religion as we know it... but do wizards > have their own concept of the supernatural themselves? Is there > anything that is supernatural to -them- (other than Muggle science) as > their world is supernatural to us? Does it seem like wizards would > have/believe in angels? Demons? Gods? > > -Rei Actually, this is one area that Rowling (probably for the best) is scrupulously quiet on. Apart from indications of an afterlife (ghosts etc.), there is nothing to indicate what belief (if any) wizards practice, or any definitive proof one way or another of a divine force in the universe. I would guess that since wizards, apart from their power, are pretty much the same as us Muggle folk, that some are inclined to spiritual practices in one form or another, some are not, and some just don't know. ~Christi From carmenharms at yahoo.com Thu Jun 27 20:37:45 2002 From: carmenharms at yahoo.com (snazzzybird) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:37:45 -0000 Subject: Humour In-Reply-To: <000c01c21e12$d06f60c0$5d3468d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40482 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rosie" wrote: > What are everyone's favourite funny parts in HP? I ask, because I have just been rereading the books... and some of the things I had forgotten made me laugh out loud. For example..."Make way for the heir of Slytherin! Seriously evil wizard coming through!" and when Harry makes Dudley think he is trying to put a spell on the hedge: "Squiggly Wiggly!" > > Any additions? If you think it's too OT, email me off list.. but hey... as Harry says at the end of GoF... we're going to need humour:) > > Rosie > I love Snape's line in the duel scene in CoS, when Gilderoy Lockhart suggests that Neville Longbottom be Justin Finch-Fletchley's opponent. Don't have the book in front of me, but it's something to the effect that as Neville wreaks havoc with the simplest of spells, "we'll be taking what's left of Finch-Fletchley to the hospital wing in a matchbox". Yes, I know it was devastating to poor Neville's self-esteem -- but it's just a sidesplitting line! -- Snazzy "Another Snape Fan" Bird From rowen_lm at yahoo.com Thu Jun 27 21:31:33 2002 From: rowen_lm at yahoo.com (Liz Muir) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 14:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: book differences Message-ID: <20020627213133.13928.qmail@web20901.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40483 Sorry to be late (really) in replying to all these. Vacation time. Rosie said: >>I noticed from the differences list that they introduced Dean Thomas in the Sorting Ceremony in the US edition too, and described him as black. Does anyone know if this was because someone decided he should be introduced earlier? Or was it (as I fear) because they thought, "Oh no, we better point out that some random characters are black to be more inclusive, even though we don't both pointing out when people are white, and even though it has no bearing whatsoever on the story."? I'm all for books representing the whole of society... but I think it looks very clumsy to just point out that the odd character is black, or Asian, or whatever, and just assume that obviously everyone else is white; it looks as if it's just been done so that the publishers can go "Look! We had a single mother/black child/wheelchair user" etc. Although maybe it was just to get him mentioned earlier. What do you think?<< It's called PC - politically correct - and it's the reason American books and tv shows tend to be not so great. People always have to worry about someone sueing them for being racist/sexist/biased just because their books haven't had a major black/female/whatever character yet. The sad part being that they actually have to worry about this. People take consitutional rights and equality way too far over here. When they have a cow about not having a black person or whatever in a story because "we're all the same," it seems like they are proving themselves wrong, since if we were all the same, it shouldn't matter what race the characters are. We shouldn't discriminate against others, but you shouldn't get special privledges for being a minority either. Does this make any sense? >>Do you have the "Adult versions" and "Child Versions" over there too? Exactly the same but with different covers? That struck me as quite stupid too.<< Not really, although there are new paperback versions coming out that are small sized with niced covers. (I never really liked the cover art, sorry) They haven't been advertised as adult versions though. I think it's nice though so that we can have more grown up looking copies. lupinboi said: >>Are the books dumbed down for American audiences? My friend K has all the British editions.. is it worth plowing through those to catch all the differences? Apart from "soccer/football" and the like, I was led to believe that they were almost exactly alike.<< No, quite a few things are taken out, added in. Check the Lexicon for a complete list. (sorry that I'm too lazy to get you a link.) Joyce said: >>These books are British books and I do not want to read Americanized versions of them. JKR wrote them in a particular way. They are based on a certain way of life, of looking at the world. The references to British life and language are part of what I and my children love about the books. It is insulting to believe that children can not adapt and learn new ways to learn a language they may think they already know. I know that my children have certainly expanded their vocabulary by reading the books in the British edition.<< That's a little too extreme for me. I don't mind them changing a few slang words but I wish the wouldn't edit for content. I hope they release a re-edited version for those of us who want it. ===== 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!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From saitaina at wizzards.net Thu Jun 27 22:48:18 2002 From: saitaina at wizzards.net (Saitaina) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 15:48:18 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Religion in HP References: Message-ID: <005e01c21e2c$bd5d5540$3a4e28d1@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 40484 Rei wrote: The passage is "Though shalt not suffer(or condem depending on the translation) a witch to live" Which bears the same meaning but as I've had that quoted at me just thought I'd make sure it's the right quote. I think that they, like every human on Earth, practice many different religions. Just because they're Christian doesn't mean they can't dismiss what someone wrote thousands of years ago. Some Christians follow the bible to the letter and some don't, it's up to them. I have no clue what they believe in, it's never been mentioned but I'm sure there's something that's beyond the realm of the natural world to them. . Saitaina [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at comcast.net Thu Jun 27 22:54:38 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:54:38 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) In-Reply-To: <20020627213133.13928.qmail@web20901.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40485 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? Well, OK. Let's say that JKR inserted a description of Dean Thomas in HP as black *solely* to demonstrate that racial diversity exists at Hogwarts or in the wizarding world. Does JKR's decision impair anyone's reading enjoyment to the extent that such an effort to portray diversity becomes "the reason American books and tv shows tend to be not so great." Can you help me understand your point there? Liz: >People always have to worry about someone sueing them for being >racist/sexist/biased just because their books haven't had a major >black/female/whatever character yet. My goodness! I haven't heard of such a lawsuit, to be honest with you. Maybe I'm missing something, but JKR (or any American author) is quite free to write a book that includes characters of a number of races or one single race. I am unaware of any lawsuit in the U.S. that could be brought if JKR had made all of the wizarding world 100% white or 100% male, to use your examples. Perhaps you can elaborate a bit there? Liz: >People > take consitutional rights and equality way too far over here. When >they have a cow about not having a black person or whatever in a >story because "we're all the same," it seems like they are proving >themselves wrong, since if we were all the same, it shouldn't >matter what race the characters are. Again, I must confess to being puzzled. I haven't heard anyone claim that JKR should include black characters because "we're all the same." To the extent I have heard the issue discussed, it is usually framed as an examination of the extent to which JKR's fictional world mirrors that of the U.K. I can't help but hold this argument up to the light for just one quick minute. If it doesn't matter what race the characters are, how can this be squared with your earlier claim that efforts to achieve diversity in literature and media have impaired their quality? After all, if racial diversity doesn't matter to you, then it ought not be something you would necessarily notice at all, so it should not affect your experience as a consumer, right? Or have I misunderstood you there? Liz: >We shouldn't discriminate against others, but you > shouldn't get special privledges for being a minority either. Does >this make any sense? Actually, no, it doesn't make sense to me at all, but maybe you can help me out a bit. It seems to me that JKR intended there to be some depiction of racial diversity in the wizarding world. I am quite unclear on how that equates with special privileges for minorities, any more than inclusion of white wizards equates with special privileges for whites? What have I missed there? Cindy From bard7696 at aol.com Thu Jun 27 22:56:59 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:56:59 -0000 Subject: book differences In-Reply-To: <20020627213133.13928.qmail@web20901.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40486 > Rosie said: > >>I noticed from the differences list that they introduced Dean Thomas > in the Sorting Ceremony in the US edition too, and described him as > black. Does anyone know if this was because someone decided he should > be introduced earlier? Or was it (as I fear) because they thought, "Oh > no, we better point out that some random characters are black to be > more inclusive, even though we don't both pointing out when people are > white, and even though it has no bearing whatsoever on the story."? I'm > all for books representing the whole of society... but I think it looks > very clumsy to just point out that the odd character is black, or > Asian, or whatever, and just assume that obviously everyone else is > white; it looks as if it's just been done so that the publishers can go > "Look! We had a single mother/black child/wheelchair user" etc. > Although maybe it was just to get him mentioned earlier. What do you > think?<< Liz Muir said: > > It's called PC - politically correct - and it's the reason American > books and tv shows tend to be not so great. People always have to worry > about someone sueing them for being racist/sexist/biased just because > their books haven't had a major black/female/whatever character yet. > The sad part being that they actually have to worry about this. People > take consitutional rights and equality way too far over here. When they > have a cow about not having a black person or whatever in a story > because "we're all the same," it seems like they are proving themselves > wrong, since if we were all the same, it shouldn't matter what race the > characters are. We shouldn't discriminate against others, but you > shouldn't get special privledges for being a minority either. Does this > make any sense? > Oh, come on now, lawsuits of this kind, if any exist, are extremely rare, and have never had any success. What members of a minority group WILL do, and have done, is refuse to watch a TV show, or read a book series, or attend a movie, if it too lily-white. That is their right as consumers. Inserting minority characters is seen a good business by many publishers and producers. But lawsuits? Please, that is PC backlash taken too far, and I'm by no means a PC fan. However, if we're going to make a mistake with our Constitutional rights or concept of equality, I'd rather we take them too far than not far enough. Having said that, is the phrasing of the insertion of Dean Thomas clumsy? Absolutely. Darrin -- Doesn't want our European friends to think we're THAT lawsuit happy yet. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Jun 27 22:59:26 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:59:26 -0000 Subject: How much does Snape know? was Wormtail's Name In the Confession (WAS: Spyin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40487 Naama wrote: > > Hmmm. But if Snape knows and accepts (i.e., believes) that Sirius is innocent - and therefore an ally - why was he so shocked that Sirius was there? > When Sirius transforms to human form, the look on Snape's face "was one of mingled fury and horror." He snarls, "Him! What is he doing here?". Again, if Snape knows that Sirius is not a traitor, why the fury and horror? I would expect "a look of loathing" << I think the answer to this is at the end of PoA. I don't have my book with me, but I believe Sirius says in his letter that he will allow himself to be seen somewhere far away from Hogwarts so that the watch on the school will be lifted. Assuming that happened, Snape was shocked because he believed up till that moment in the hospital wing that Sirius was long gone. Of all the things he was steeling himself for as a result of Voldemort's return, dealing with Black was not one of them. Even though Snape may have intellectually accepted that Black was innocent and that Dumbledore considers him an ally, his gut feelings are another matter. This is still the person he thinks tried to get him killed at the age of sixteen, and someone whom Snape has reason enough to regard as a loose cannon (two enns). And now Snape has been blindsided by Sirius's reappearance. He must know, from what Dumbledore has just said about "recognize each other for what they are," what is about to be asked of him. I think his look of fury and horror is well justified. Pippin From kerelsen at quik.com Thu Jun 27 23:35:43 2002 From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 19:35:43 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) References: Message-ID: <00d301c21e33$5bfd7da0$c921b0d8@kerelsen> No: HPFGUIDX 40488 ----- Original Message ----- From: "cindysphynx" > It seems to me that JKR intended there to be some depiction of > racial diversity in the wizarding world. I am quite unclear on how > that equates with special privileges for minorities, any more than > inclusion of white wizards equates with special privileges for > whites? What have I missed there? > > Cindy Cindy, what is at issue here is that ONLY the U.S. editions of HPPS/SS have been changed to emphasize the point that Dean Thomas was black. The original Brit versions just mentioned him by name, not putting in any reference to his skin color. It really has nothing to do with what JKR originally intended the books to describe as far as racial and ethnic diversity goes. Many people are bothered by the change that Scholastic did when they published the books in the U.S. because they deem it as the company toadying to the people who want everything, including children's literature to be "politically correct" in that you must show that there are (token) members of various ethnic/racial groups, sexual preference groups, genders, etc., even if the story doesn't necessarily rely on whether a person has dark, light or even purple skin. In my head, even before I read that Dean Thomas was a black boy, I had already envisioned a mix of racial types in Diagon Alley, simply because it reminded me of crowded Covent Garden back in the 1980s when I lived in London, which was a fabulous place to see all the varieties of human kind. I would have envisioned them as mixed racial types even if I'd gotten to read the original Brit versions that had not had the phrase about Dean being black in it. Some people are so tired of the PC people using social pressure to force these kinds of changes that they seem (IMO) to feel threatened that these pressures will in turn become reverse discrimination. I think that is what has affected how some people on this list see this thread and how they are communicating about it. As this is getting dangerously OT, I'll stop now! Bernadette/RowanRhys "Life's greatest happiness is to be convinced we are loved." - Victor Hugo, Les Miserables, 1862 From skelkins at attbi.com Thu Jun 27 23:27:05 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 23:27:05 -0000 Subject: The Triwizard Portkey In-Reply-To: <009b01c21ddf$0f1d82e0$a07663d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40489 David and I were poking holes in the theory that Voldemort planned to use the Triwizard Tournament Cup Portkey to transport himself and all of his Death Eaters right into the heart of Hogwarts and launch an immediate assault on the creme de la creme of wizarding society. Little did we realize that a Geist was watching. Amanda wrote: > Hrm. You two are laughing at one of my pet theories. **geist rolls > up sleeves** We are indeed, Amanda, but you know, the only reason that we're able to do that without even bothering to set *forth* the theory in question first is because everybody knows it already. Why, it's practically canon! It has achieved deuterocanonical status on this list. So take heart. I'm glad you're here, though, because maybe you can help me out with some of my problems with this theory. I've always absolutely *loved* this one conceptually -- in fact, it was one of the things that drew me to this list when I saw it cited on the Lexicon -- but I have a few problems with some of its details. So maybe you can help me out with those. (Way back in March I tried to ask you about this, actually, but that was when Yahoomort was doing its nasty thing of eating half my posts and delaying the other half for over a week.) First off, I certainly agree that the Tournament audience makes an absolutely perfect audience for a really BIG "I'm back" terrorist message. As you wrote, it has: > (1) the heads of the three most prominent wizarding schools in that > part of the world; > (2) the top officials of the Ministry of Magic; > (3) the children of probably the entire wizarding population of the > UK; > and > (4) the children of several wizarding families from France and > wherever Durmstrang is. Absolutely. It's perfect. And I also agree with you that the timing of the entire "how to abduct Harry" plot really does suggest that this was indeed the plan. What I can't see, though, is quite how the plan would *work.* You wrote: > I believe, therefore, that the whole plan was something along these > lines: > (a) get Harry through the tournament as a winner > (b) get Harry to the graveyard for Voldemort's reanimation > (c) use the portkey to return to the grounds of Hogwarts > (d) make major offensive action against the gathered, unsuspecting > might of the free world. > (e) sit back and mop up. > It broke down at (b). That it did. But if it hadn't broken down at (b), wouldn't it have broken down at (c)? Voldemort has thirty some-odd Death Eaters. They all need to be touching the Portkey simultaneously for this plan to work. The Cup just isn't that big. I have serious trouble imagining how thirty grown men and a newly reincorporated Snake Dude would manage to all cluster around the Cup and lay fingers on it at once. It just doesn't seem feasible to me somehow. Even if they could manage it, they would hardly arrive in any condition to launch a credible attack. As David wrote: > And the thought of thirty DEs all landing in a jumble on the > Quidditch pitch as they try to hold on to the portkey seriously > endangered my reputation for sanity in the office. It is hard to imagine how that could work, isn't it? I mean, on the purely physical level, it's problematic. But even if they did manage that, then there's the problem of (d). Voldemort and his thirty some-odd Death Eaters all appear, right outside of the hedge maze. Preferably with Harry Potter's corpse, just for psychological effect. Okay, so what then? Assassinating Dumbledore would seem an obvious first move. Dumbledore is a serious thorn in their side. You suggest that they could also have started taking the children of the assembled audience members hostage, just to forestall any attacks against them and ensure the compliance of Important People of the wizarding world. Fair enough. But, but, but...but they wouldn't really be appearing in the immediate vicinity of any convenient hostages, would they? All of those important wizards, as well as their hostage-worthy children, are watching the contest from high up in the *stands.* They therefore have the advantage of both height *and* visibility over a group of DEs suddenly appearing right in front of the maze on the ground. And the audience would also be likely to have their attention utterly fixed on that particular spot. I assume that the audience knew that this was where the winner of the Tournament would appear. While I certainly agree with you that the sudden appearance of the reborn Voldemort and a bunch of masked and cloaked Death Eaters would be likely to cause panic and dismay, I don't really know if I believe that the element of surprise would be quite enough to prevent some of the more competent members of the audience (members of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, for example) to take advantage of that height and visibility advantage to smack Voldemort and the Death Eaters down with curses before they'd even had a *chance* to take any hostages. Just look at how quickly members of the Ministry manage to triangulate on the source of the "morsmordre" spell in Chapter 9 of GoF, for example. People are panicking at the sight of the Dark Mark too, but the Ministry guys still manage to keep their heads, and they hardly hesitate before firing off their "Stupefy" spells. I also don't know if I agree that the Tournament audience wouldn't be armed. Wizards seem to carry their wands with them *everywhere.* The spectators at the QWC weren't anticipating trouble either, and yet even people like Arthur Weasley and Amos Diggory -- not exactly Special Forces types -- did have their wands with them. It just seems like a *very* risky plan to me, particularly as Voldemort and the Death Eaters would have had no way of making an effective retreat should they meet up with competent resistance. They can't Disapparate away, and even if we assume that the Portkey was programmed to allow them to escape, we're left with an even more slapstick version of that humorous image that David proposed: over thirty people, in the middle of a combat situation, falling all over themselves in their effort to lay hands on that Portkey. For all of them to touch it at once would have been tricky enough in the no- pressure atmosphere of the graveyard. For all of them to touch it at once while under fire? Not likely. They'd be elbowing each other in the *throats* trying to get to the thing before being stupefied. I really do love this theory, always have. But I just can't seem to make it work. -- Elkins From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Jun 28 00:23:41 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 00:23:41 -0000 Subject: The Triwizard Portkey In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40490 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > David and I were poking holes in the theory that Voldemort planned to use the Triwizard Tournament Cup Portkey to transport himself and all of his Death Eaters right into the heart of Hogwarts and launch an immediate assault on the creme de la creme of wizarding society. > > What I can't see, though, is quite how the plan would *work.* > > [Amanda] wrote: > > > I believe, therefore, that the whole plan was something along these > > lines: > > (a) get Harry through the tournament as a winner > > (b) get Harry to the graveyard for Voldemort's reanimation > > (c) use the portkey to return to the grounds of Hogwarts > > (d) make major offensive action against the gathered, unsuspecting > > might of the free world. > > (e) sit back and mop up. > > > It broke down at (b). > > > That it did. But if it hadn't broken down at (b), wouldn't it have > broken down at (c)? > As one of the authors of the original theory, allow me to respond. Elkins and David raise some valid objections to the logistics of the thing, mainly that there are too many dark wizards to all touch the Cup at once. It would be easiest if you imagine that they aren't all limited to one portkey. Presumably it's not easy to program a portkey to take one to Hogwarts, but if you have one already, perhaps it's possible to make more. But, let us say, just to be difficult, that you can't, and that they all have to be touching the Cup to use it, they can't just be touching one another. 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. 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. If all had gone according to plan, no doubt Voldemort would have signalled Barty via Dark Mark that he was about to transport to Hogwarts. Then Barty could have created another diversion to draw people's attention from the return site. An assasination attempt on Dumbledore would be too risky. It's clear from Voldemort's words in the graveyard that he's still afraid of him and so are the other DE's. 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. 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. Pippin From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Jun 28 02:07:04 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 21:07:04 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Grandpa Voldemort/Religion in HP References: <3034175.1025197676551.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> <19163096784.20020627121411@mindspring.com> <00a501c21e0f$92e32e60$5d3468d5@xxx> Message-ID: <00a501c21e48$845d97c0$1da2cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 40491 Rosie writes: >I could see it as more likely that it was some witch, maybe besotted by the young Riddle, but who he just used >& threw away. Then the young Voldemort!Baby got handed over to foster parents.. who also adopted... Petunia! >Thereby making it very nicely so that Petunia and her horrible son AREN'T related to Harry, which I would like >very much. Perhaps part of the reason she resents the "burden" of looking after him is that she always >suspected that she and Lily weren't true sisters, and therefore not only is she having to look after this little brat >dumped on her, but he isn't *really* even her nephew. I think it is possible that something like this could be the case. Aunt Petunia certainly doesn't seem to look very much like Lily, sure doesn't act like I'd expect her to! And it would be very satisfying for the readers to learn that Harry isn't really Petunia's nephew! Not to mention it takes a pretty hard person or a person who doubts the relation to treat a blood relative the way she treated Harry. Who knows, maybe she knew she and Lily were both adopted and didn't want it revealed for some reason or another. She is one to keep a secret. A revelation such as that would make for a light moment in what will probably otherwise be a dark book with Voldemort returning and all. Judy Serenity writes: >Could Harry be descended from both Slytherin *and* Gryffindor? He >could, which would explain the Sorting Hat's difficulties in placing >him. But, being descended from Slytherin really isn't neccessary to >explain to explain most features of the plot. I think that could be the key. Maybe if the Heir of Slytherin was also the Heir of Gryffindor the goodness of Gryffindor would take over and eliminate Slytherin entirely. Or perhaps the combination would make for the most powerful witch or wizard ever known. >As for Voldemort's willingness to spare Lily, several people here have >independently come up with the theory that Voldemort or one of the DEs >had a romantic interest in her. Eww-yuck! I like my idea better. :) Less gross. :) Corinth writes: >In addition, although it's never referenced directly, I see no reason >why wizards wouldn't practice the same religions as us muggles. As >far as we have been told, wizards, with the possible exception of >Voldemort, have not achieved immortality. I really don't think even Voldemort has immortality. Has anyone actually *tried* to kill him? He's of course got all those DEs protecting him. Not to mention he can pack a pretty powerful countercurse should anyone try anything. On the topic of religion in HP, I think that JKR deliberately tries to avoid any religious connotations. I mean if she had a bunch of wizards and witches going to church on Sunday that would really stir up some people! The closest thing in any of the HP books that reminded me of religion was in the graveyard scene of GoF. It specifically says that Harry thought these things, not prayed, but the manner of the words are reflective of prayer: "Let it drown, please . . . let it drown . . .let it have gone wrong . . . please let it be dead . . ." Though these are thing Harry is thinking, it's something that one would pray at a time like that and certainly not aloud. One can think prayers, so who knows. Richelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri Jun 28 02:10:50 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 02:10:50 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Cruciatus Makes You Stronger/Peter Doesn't Get The Girl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40492 The nurse swung open the door that separated the St. Mungo's Clinic waiting room from the doctors' offices, scanning the crowd of theorists, who all looked up expectantly from their copies of their favorite canons. She hurriedly consulting a chart as scraps of paper bulged from it and fluttered to the floor. "Captain Cindy? Is Captain Cindy still here?" The Captain rose wearily from her seat, heaved her Big paddle to her shoulder, and followed the nurse to the last opening off a narrow hallway. The gold-plated sign on the door read, "Dr. George ? Canon Specialist." George looked up from a stack of Snape reports, brushed his auburn hair from his eyes, and glided to the Captain, kissing her softly on one cheek. He gestured her inside, and she collapsed heavily onto a leather chaise, clutching her Big paddle to her chest. George seated himself at his desk, the dark wooden surface polished to a high sheen. "It's been . . . " George quickly glanced at the Captain's dog-eared file, "quite a while, Captain. What seems to be the problem this time?" "It's Pip. And . . . and Elkins. And . . . and . . . it's *everyone*!" the Captain blurted out, breaking down completely. "They've *surrounded* me. I can't get away with *any* canon subversion anymore. They're attacking me, challenging my canons, smashing my paddle, spiking hedgehogs at my head, and dumping me right into the *Bay* instead of the deck of my SHIP!" The words and the tears came in a rush. "I . . . I can't fend them all off at once. It's *too much* for one person. TOO MUCH, I tell you!!! I can't *take* the pressure! You've got to *help* me, Doctor! YOU'VE JUST *GOT* TO HELP ME!!!" "Whoa! Calm *down*!" George said, his voice rising impatiently. "Suck it *up,* for heaven's sake -- it can't be *that* bad. You're not making any *sense.* Try to pull yourself *together.*" He paused, waiting for the Captain to catch her breath. "Now, what theories are they challenging?" "That . . . " the Captain sobbed, "that . . . Cruciatus makes you *stronger.* Pip *hates* that theory, and Elkins . . ." The Captain blew her nose vigorously into a stained handkerchief. "Elkins said I was . . . *demented!*" "Oh, come *on!* That newcomer Pip is *ruthless,* I'll give you that," George said. "But Elkins would *never* say something like that about *you.* You two *reconciled,* right? Besides, you go *way* back ? back to before Fourth Man, before FEATHERBOAS, before SYCOPHANTS --" "And before *the Egg*!" the Captain wailed. George sighed wearily, his head in his hands. "Well, what did she *say* exactly," he asked. He lowered his voice. "Because between you and me, that Cruciatus-Makes-You-Stronger theory *is* a bit of a dog." "She . . she said Pip would never swallow that Cruciatus makes you stronger because Pip is not utterly *deranged.* And then . . . " the Captain's voice broke as she struggled to form the words, ". . . then she said it's an *utterly ludicrous notion.*" George winced and turned away quickly. "Oh, ouch. I'll bet that really *hurt.*" "I mean, don't they know I was only *joking* there? You know, just having a little *fun* with good ol' Pip? Tossing her an easy one for her to knock right out of the Bay, you know what I mean?" George finished her thoughts. "And now you can't admit you were wrong because that wouldn't be *Tough,* is that it?" The Captain nodded slowly, blinking her reddened eyes. "Is there *any* way out? *Any* canon argument, *any* JKR interview, *any* logic, *anything* that won't draw a huge Yellow Flag?" George fixed his blue eyes on the Captain as he shook his head. "I'm afraid I have to go with Elkins on this one. Remember the Symposium? Remember the advice she gave you there: 'Four simple words ? I. Concede. The. Point.' That was pretty good advice, actually. That's really all you can do here. 'Cause you do *not* want to tangle with Elkins *and* Pip at the same time ? oh, no. There's no upside there *at all.*" "But," the Captain said, sitting up suddenly, "I still have one canon left. I have Moody torturing the spider. He *enlarged* it first. Can't I do something with that? He had to enlarge it, uh . . . um . . . because the Cruciatus Curse would make it *stronger*, right? That works, doesn't it?" George scribbled something on his clipboard, angling it away from the Captain. "Deranged. Definitely deranged," it read. He tapped his pencil on the clipboard nervously, eyeing the Captain's Big paddle. "Maybe we should move on. Is there anything else I can help you with?" "Well," the Captain fell back onto the chaise again, the back of her hand across her tired eyes. "Elkins is trying to steal *my* Florence theory." "No!" exclaimed George. "Yes!" cried the Captain. "Right in the middle of the canon museum and everything." George raised one eyebrow, a single thin wrinkle marring his boyish face. "Do tell." The Captain reclined on the chaise, her eyes closed against the bright lights of George's office. "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." George straightened in his chair, his eyes wide. "Hey, that's not half bad!" "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." "Well," George laid his clipboard on the desk and rubbed his chin thoughtfully, "that *is* a little bit different." "No, it's not!" The Captain's eyes snapped open. "Well, OK, yes it is. But it's not *right!*" Her eyes darted to the clipboard. "Uh, aren't you supposed to be writing this down? For my chart and all?" George grabbed up the clipboard again and flipped to a fresh sheet of paper. "Let's go over this new Florence theory. What exactly do you mean?" he said. "Well, 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* answer." George kept his face impassive. "Go on." "*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." George looked up quickly from his clipboard, his pen suspended in his motionless hand. "Have you mentioned that to Elkins? I mean, maybe she'll be *reasonable* about it. It's worth a shot, you know?" "No!" The Captain sniffed loudly, waving off the box of tissues George pushed toward her. "No! I'm *finished* with Florence. I can't go *on* like this. Now it's just Elkins and Pip who are out to get me. But soon it will be Marina! And Dicentra! And Caroline! And those *Pirates!* And that little monkey! No, don't you see! They'll *all* come after me if I post that theory!" Her voice wavered out of control. "I *won't* post my new Florence theory, not now, not *EVER!* I can't, and I WON'T!!!" she shrieked. "OK, OK, fine," George said in a soothing tone. "*Don't* post it then. Really, just *wait* and someone else will post it soon enough, OK? No pressure! You just take it easy. Take a little *break* from posting, that's what you should do." He glanced nervously at his watch. "Oh, dear. I'm afraid our time is up for this week." The Captain swung her feet to the floor and shouldered her Big paddle as she stood. She craned her neck to peek at George's clipboard, but he quickly turned it face-down on his desk. "Hey," she asked, "what are you going to do with those notes -- you know, your notes about my new Florence theory?" George waved one hand toward the clipboard. "Oh, *those*?" He gave the Captain a sly wink as he took her arm and guided her toward the door. "Oh, not to worry. Your secrets are safe with me. Doctor-patient confidentiality and all, don't you know." *********************** Cindy ********************** 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 From dilectio_indomitus at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jun 28 02:23:02 2002 From: dilectio_indomitus at yahoo.co.uk (dilectio_indomitus) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 02:23:02 -0000 Subject: What does Harry do for YOU? In-Reply-To: <9bku8o+a52e@eGroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40493 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., sabrinarae77 at y... wrote: > I am a college student writing a paper on why Harry Potter is great > for adults and kids. I would like some feedback/personal opinions > about why you like Harry Potter. Thanks. > > Sabrina First off it's a fantastic story. Rich characters, amazing descriptions etc. etc. Beyond that though, when I first read (actually listened) to book one, the series had been out for a while and I was aware of the craze. I'd heard that kids all over the world were putting down their nintendos and ploughing through these relatively long books. Given the context, I found the stories inspiring. I thought, "If this is what millions of kids all over the world are reading and loving, things can't be all that bad." Later I was talking to a good friend about it. I mentioned that part of what I found inspiring is the hero's in the story are heroic based more on their character than on "success". This friend of mine reads a lot of self-improvement books. He mentioned that self improvement books used to be about how to develop and maintain good character, but have changed to emphasising pathways to career success and financial independence. So I guess the emphasis on character, and the fact that this is appealing to so many people, was a refreshing surprise to an old cynic like myself. That's what warmed my heart after reading the first time. I reread them because I love the story. Erasmas From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Thu Jun 27 23:53:07 2002 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 23:53:07 -0000 Subject: Humour In-Reply-To: <000c01c21e12$d06f60c0$5d3468d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40494 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rosie" wrote: > What are everyone's favourite funny parts in HP? > > Rosie > > Mine is the one where Ron says, "Lavender, can I see Uranus?" So silly and juvenile, and I remember when it was hilarious in junior high :) Alora From bard7696 at aol.com Fri Jun 28 02:29:25 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 02:29:25 -0000 Subject: DE as KKK Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40495 There's been some excellent posts lately about the pseudo-religious aspects of the graveyard scene in GoF. Without disagreeing, I'd like to draw the parallel a bit closer to a group of scumbags in the real United States -- The Ku Klux Klan. Having covered two KKK rallies for my newspaper and witnessed the ceremonial nonsense that goes with the cross burning, I see some similarities in the way they go about their rituals. The circle, with the "Grand Wizard" (Ironic, isn't it, that that's the name for the head Klannie?) addressing the members, took place. The ceremony I saw was just for show, so a black person wasn't lynched (Yes, I included a black person in this discussion -- sorry if bringing up a lynching is too PC for some -- OK, end of rant) but news accounts from the 1930s say there was a ceremonial aspect to the killing, kind of like what Harry went through. More scattershot parallels can be found. The term "mudbloods" is a direct descendent (or ancestor) of "mud races" which is what the KKK calls blacks and Latinos. KKK members all have real jobs, and during the height of its powers, they were often well-respected members of the community. Brotherhood and loyalty were highly valued. And of course, in many cases, the Klan groups were brought down by traitors from within. Some indoctrinated member would turn against them and work with the authorities. :) Oh, and on another topic. You folks have convinced me. I placed my order on Amazon.com.uk tonight for the British versions of the books. So, 38 pounds translates to what, about 60 dollars? :) Darrin -- Pounds I can figure Ok, but what the hell is a farthing? From adatole at yahoo.com Thu Jun 27 19:20:41 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (Leon Adato) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 15:20:41 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Religion in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c21e52$360d5470$0464a8c0@dellcpi> No: HPFGUIDX 40496 reincineier said: ************ Something that has been bothering me for a while: what is everyone's take on religion in the HP wizarding world? ************* It seems pretty clear that JKR has steered clear of ALL religion - no mention of J.C., Vishnu, Hashem, Allah or any other deific entity. Yes, Christmas and Easter are mentioned as holidays (meaning "vacations" in US terminology) but that could just be the less-PC way of saying "winter holiday" and "spring break". My understanding from friends who grew up in the UK is that this is very common. Christmass is seen by many to be a non-religious holiday (strange as it may sound). Aside from those two vacation-events, there is no other mention of a religious occurance - nothing Jewish, Hindu (despite having Indian students), Muslim, Buddhist, or otherwise. While this originally bothered me, someone pointed out that this would steal focus from the *conflict*. It is harder to make a metaphorical comparison when the real elements are also present. To say that another way, it's hard to use the treatment of half-giants (and the half-giant hiding his status) as an allegory of (for example) Jewish persecution if you clearly have Jewish people (persecuted or not) in the story. People tend to miss the point then. So my assumption is that JKR is only showing "religion" if it is a social event, not a truly theological one. $.02 debit cheerfully recorded. Leon Adato -------------- I have suffered from being misunderstood, but I would have suffered a hell of a lot more if I had been understood. -Clarence Darrow, lawyer and author (1857-1938) From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri Jun 28 03:19:59 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:19:59 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) In-Reply-To: <00d301c21e33$5bfd7da0$c921b0d8@kerelsen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40497 Bernadette wrote: > Cindy, what is at issue here is that ONLY the U.S. editions of > HPPS/SS have been changed to emphasize the point that Dean Thomas > was black. The original Brit versions just mentioned him by > name, not putting in any reference to his skin color. It really > has nothing to do with what JKR originally intended the books to > describe as far as racial and ethnic diversity goes. You know, Bernadette, I really do understand what you are saying. I just find the argument rather unpersuasive. Let's assume the absolute worst. Let's assume that some U.S. publicist type contacted his or her counterpart in the U.K. and said, "You know, we would reach a broader audience here in the U.S. if we made a character black. How about Dean Thomas?" If I understand your argument, Bernadette, it sounds like this would be a bad thing. Tokenism, reverse discrimination or some such. Yet you indicated that you already viewed the wizarding world as racially diverse in your own mind. So why would this change bother you? What I can't quite figure out is why it makes *any difference* to someone who says she viewed the books as multi-racial in the first instance? If it were me and I already assumed that the wizarding world were diverse, I would merely shrug at the change in Dean Thomas' race (I say "change" assuming, of course, that he wasn't always intended to be black). Bernadette: > Many people are bothered by the change that Scholastic did when > they published the books in the U.S. because they deem it as the > company toadying to the people who want everything, including > children's literature to be "politically correct" in that you > must show that there are (token) members of various ethnic/racial > groups, sexual preference groups, genders, etc., even if the > story doesn't necessarily rely on whether a person has dark, > light or even purple skin. "Toadying?" Having a desire that a book reflect or appeal to the potential audience is "toadying?" And if the story doesn't absolutely *require* that there be racial diversity, then including racial diversity is some misguided effort to be politically correct? Characters in stories should be 100% the majority race unless it is *absolutely necessary* to include racial diversity for a story-related reason? Maybe some people (I wouldn't go so far as to characterize it as "many" people) are irked by Dean Thomas' race being made explicit in the U.S. edition. Some of us view it differently, though. Some of us approach it from the viewpoint that it would be ideal and inclusive and realistic for there to have been racial diversity in the books (assuming that this was OK with the author) *from the start.* That this diversity was added a little late in the game does not make it less valuable or legitimate. I somehow suspect that if JKR thought it important that Dean Thomas be white, he'd be white. > Some people are so tired of the PC people using social pressure > to force these kinds of changes that they seem (IMO) to feel > threatened that these pressures will in turn become reverse > discrimination. Well, Darrin already said it quite well. Everyone in the U.S. gets to vote with their wallet. Literature, TV shows, movies etc. that include only the majority race in our diverse culture may find less of an audience. Members of minority races have every right to choose what to read or watch, just as those of the majority race do, I would say. So if anyone is deeply troubled that Dean Thomas is black in the U.S. edition, they have the right to vote with their wallet and decline to purchase the books. I fail to see the reason for the irritation people express over a decision to make a character of a minority race in this instance, which leads me to worry that something deeper may be at work. Cindy From nplyon at yahoo.com Fri Jun 28 02:57:07 2002 From: nplyon at yahoo.com (nplyon) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 02:57:07 -0000 Subject: Humour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40498 > > What are everyone's favourite funny parts in HP? > > > > Rosie > > > > > > > Mine is the one where Ron says, "Lavender, can I see Uranus?" So > silly and juvenile, and I remember when it was hilarious in junior > high :) > > Alora I love that one too :) . I've just finished rereading the series and I laughed out loud with that one. It is very juvenile and I can remember when I found it hilarious as well. Some of my other favorites, which I have not yet seen mentioned: Can't remember which book, but when Dudley is trying to threaten Harry with putting his head in the toilet and Harry responds by saying that the toilet has never seen anything as scary as Dudley's head. When Ron tries to call Harry and he screams because he doesn't understand how to use a telephone. When Mrs. Weasley sends a letter to the Dursleys with stamps all over the front of it. So many others that I can't think of right now... ~Nicole From nplyon at yahoo.com Fri Jun 28 02:50:16 2002 From: nplyon at yahoo.com (nplyon) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 02:50:16 -0000 Subject: What does Harry do for YOU? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40499 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., sabrinarae77 at y... wrote: > I am a college student writing a paper on why Harry Potter is great > for adults and kids. I would like some feedback/personal opinions > about why you like Harry Potter. Thanks. > > Sabrina > There are so many things that I like about the HP books. For one, I am thrilled that they have inspired a love of reading in children. I think that this is wonderful in a day and age where kids usually seek constant stimulation in the form of video games and television. There seems to be a lot of poeple who think the written word is a dying art form but I, for one, believe it has the power to captivate in a way that no other medium does. I am an avid reader and think that almost anything that makes people want to read is wonderful. However, I am also very heartened when people love to read something that is very, very well written. After all, I don't want everyone reading with relish because they think Danielle Steele is the best author in the history of the written world. :) I would much rather they read something by an author like JKR, whose prose is evocative, richly detailed, and devilishly clever. I admire her writing very, very much. These things aside, I just love the books. They are so richly detailed and I like being transported to an unfamiliar world. I like the sly humor in them, I like the fully-drawn characters, and I like the interesting, exciting plot lines. I think that one of my favorite things about them, though, is the idea of seemingly ordinary people doing extraordinary and heroic things, and this is not just shown through Harry. As many people have mentioned, even poor Neville Longbottom shows a great deal of courage when he stands up to HRH in SS/PS. I also like the undercurrent of morality that runs through them. Harry has his moments when he acts in a manner that is not entirely nice but, underneath it all, he is a decent person who is trying to do the right thing. Actually, I'm glad that he sometimes reacts to things in ways that are petty and selfish because that makes him human. He'd be boring and preachy if he was 100% good 100% of the time. In sum, I just think that JKR has the great gift of writing something to which so many people feel they can relate. The people who read her books see glimpses of themselves in some of the characters. These are people they can imagine themselves befriending or detesting. The readers of the books genuinely care about the characters and what happens to them and that's what keeps them coming back for more. As I told my husband tonight, I hate finishing book 4 because all I want to do is pick up book 5 and keep on reading! ~Nicole, who remembers the glory days when I was young and my parents couldn't have *paid* me to stay inside and watch TV rather than running around outside using my imagination with my friends. From adatole at yahoo.com Fri Jun 28 03:24:35 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (Leon Adato) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 23:24:35 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] French Derivatives & Translation Issues In-Reply-To: <008901c21e23$c0d88860$570207c3@Adi> Message-ID: <000b01c21e53$540a8690$0464a8c0@dellcpi> No: HPFGUIDX 40500 Mariuca said: ************** I would be very interested to hear from non-native English speakers how other HP translations managed this kind of thing! If you think that would be too boring for the native speakers, please write to my personal address! ************ I just want to weigh in on this: I would love to be part of this discussion. I am a native English speaker but speak 2 other languages at an intermediate level (yes, I know that's a biased and highly subjective assessment) and I love learning about elements of other languages. If the moderators could weigh in on this and point out whether this should go to OTChatter, or go offline, or stay here, we could avoid creating "noise" on the list for others. Thanks! Leon Adato -------------- I have suffered from being misunderstood, but I would have suffered a hell of a lot more if I had been understood. -Clarence Darrow, lawyer and author (1857-1938) -----Original Message----- From: Mariuca Mihalache [mailto:sanda at fx.ro] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 5:40 PM To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] French Derivatives & Translation Issues I have only read the books in the Romanian translation so far: many of the names were translated as well (probably for the readers to better grasp the clues about the characters' personality), including Voldemort and Malfoy. Voldemort was rendered as "Capdemort", which, although bearing a resemblance of form to the original, has the (quite?) different meaning of "skull", litterally "head of a dead person". Malfoy was translated with the equivalent of "badfaith" in Romanian. While this may be justified for the reason I mentioned, I nevertheless think that the translations lack the "flavour" of the originals. I am a translator, too, and the way I'd have done it would have been to give the meanings in a footnote and preserve the original names. Mariuca [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 brian042 at hotmail.com Thu Jun 27 23:38:37 2002 From: brian042 at hotmail.com (bkb042) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 23:38:37 -0000 Subject: Religion in HP In-Reply-To: <005e01c21e2c$bd5d5540$3a4e28d1@oemcomputer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40501 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Saitaina" wrote: > Rei wrote: > > take on religion in the HP wizarding world? They have references to > and practice such holidays as Christmas and Easter, yet it doesn't > seem to make sense that they would be Christian, since in the Bible it > was said that "You shall not allow a sorcerer/ess to live." > > > The passage is "Though shalt not suffer(or condem depending on the translation) a witch to live" Which bears the same meaning but as I've had that quoted at me just thought I'd make sure it's the right quote. > > I think that they, like every human on Earth, practice many different religions. Just because they're Christian doesn't mean they can't dismiss what someone wrote thousands of years ago. Some Christians follow the bible to the letter and some don't, it's up to them. > > magic itself- are supernatural in Muggle eyes, which perhaps makes > wizards seem beyond Muggle religion as we know it... but do wizards > have their own concept of the supernatural themselves? Is there > anything that is supernatural to -them- (other than Muggle science) as > their world is supernatural to us? Does it seem like wizards would > have/believe in angels? Demons? Gods?> > > I have no clue what they believe in, it's never been mentioned but I'm sure there's something that's beyond the realm of the natural world to them. . > > Saitaina > Two things should be kept in mind when quoting from the Bible: 1) It wasn't originally written in english. Word meanings can become corrupted in translation. 2) There is little evidence to suggest that cultural idiom was or was not taken into account when the various translations were made. I believe that the word 'witch' derives from two sources; 'wicca' meaning 'wise' and 'wicce' meaning 'woman'. I have also heard that in one of the ancient dialects that the old testament was written in, the word 'witch' was the local idiom for 'one who kills with poison' or 'poisoner' Any etymologists out there care to comment? bkb042 > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Jun 28 03:33:57 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:33:57 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What does Harry do for YOU? References: Message-ID: <001601c21e54$a3409500$6c9ccdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 40502 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., sabrinarae77 at y... wrote: > I am a college student writing a paper on why Harry Potter is great > for adults and kids. I would like some feedback/personal opinions > about why you like Harry Potter. Thanks. > > Sabrina I for one did not jump on the Harry Potter band wagon right away. I was of the mind set that "It's only a book, what is the big deal, it can't be that good!" Well just about four months ago I finally gave in and ordered all four books. I am a teacher after all, so I figured I should keep up with the trends. I had a partner teacher who was reading them and kept telling me how good they were. So finally after all four books sat in a stack on the floor for about three months I picked them up. Half way through SS/PS the DVD of HP came out. I watched it and couldn't wait to finish the book. I finished the remaining three in five or six days (mostly in the evenings as I was attending workshops every day). Anyway, I was enthralled. I simply could not keep myself from picking up the books, even if it was just before I walked out the door and only had time for a couple of pages. Another thing about the books is they capture your emotions. I am NOT an overly emotional person, I rarely cry and never over books. So here I am reading GoF at the graveyard scene. When Voldemort shouts "Crucio!" at Harry, I literally closed my eyes. Of course I then found that I couldn't keep reading that way :) Later once Harry is back at Hogwarts and retelling the events to Dumbledore and Sirius I sniffled my way through, wanting desperately for someone to give the poor child a hug! I blubbered my way through until finally Mrs. Weasley got the hint and gave Harry his hug. Well, I lost it, absolutely bawled. I was so glad there was no one there to see it! The night after I finished GoF, I lay in bed actually worrying about Harry and his emotional state. (Then I got a little worried about my own emotional state!) Anyway, my point being, these books are so well written that it doesn't matter if you're 10 or 25 or 55 or whatever. They are perfect for anyone who wants to escape into another world. The language JKR created for these books truly helps in creating another world that is so vastly different from our own yet so realistic in the books that we really wish it were real! Richelle From kerelsen at quik.com Fri Jun 28 04:44:21 2002 From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 00:44:21 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) References: Message-ID: <001f01c21e5e$79b8aba0$8721b0d8@kerelsen> No: HPFGUIDX 40503 ----- Original Message ----- From: "cindysphynx" > Bernadette wrote: > > > Cindy, what is at issue here is that ONLY the U.S. editions of > > HPPS/SS have been changed to emphasize the point that Dean Thomas > > was black. The original Brit versions just mentioned him by > > name, not putting in any reference to his skin color. It really > > has nothing to do with what JKR originally intended the books to > > describe as far as racial and ethnic diversity goes. > > You know, Bernadette, I really do understand what you are saying. I > just find the argument rather unpersuasive. Then I think that you are seeing a different issue here than I am seeing. I'm not seeing it as a bunch of people saying "How dare you make a character black," but rather as "How dare you make changes from the original text just to appease a particular group of people." > Let's assume the absolute worst. Let's assume that some U.S. > publicist type contacted his or her counterpart in the U.K. and > said, "You know, we would reach a broader audience here in the U.S. > if we made a character black. How about Dean Thomas?" > > If I understand your argument, Bernadette, it sounds like this would > be a bad thing. Tokenism, reverse discrimination or some such. Yet > you indicated that you already viewed the wizarding world as > racially diverse in your own mind. So why would this change bother > you? What I can't quite figure out is why it makes *any difference* > to someone who says she viewed the books as multi-racial in the > first instance? If it were me and I already assumed that the > wizarding world were diverse, I would merely shrug at the change in > Dean Thomas' race (I say "change" assuming, of course, that he > wasn't always intended to be black). I was not saying that _I_ perceived tokenism in the addition of racial detail in Dean Thomas' description, but that there are others who do. A friend of mind dislikes tokenism, because, to her mind, it's like a giant neon sign flashing "Look! We're good guys because we are consciously promoting a minority cultural character to prove that we don't discriminate!" She said that it implies that unless she proves by specifying a particular character as being of color or other ethnic difference, then she is guilty of discrimination, even if in her head when she created the characters, she didn't see them as non-racially/ethnically diverse. It doesn't make any difference to ME, but it apparently does make a difference to other people, and the particular reasons that the race is made so obvious seems to be a part of what bothers those folks. Some reasons are more acceptable than others, depending on who you talk to. > Bernadette: > > > Many people are bothered by the change that Scholastic did when > > they published the books in the U.S. because they deem it as the > > company toadying to the people who want everything, including > > children's literature to be "politically correct" in that you > > must show that there are (token) members of various ethnic/racial > > groups, sexual preference groups, genders, etc., even if the > > story doesn't necessarily rely on whether a person has dark, > > light or even purple skin. > > "Toadying?" Having a desire that a book reflect or appeal to the > potential audience is "toadying?" And if the story doesn't > absolutely *require* that there be racial diversity, then including > racial diversity is some misguided effort to be politically > correct? Characters in stories should be 100% the majority race > unless it is *absolutely necessary* to include racial diversity for > a story-related reason? I should have phrased it as "a sector of the potential audience." As a PR student, I tend to use the term audience to describe individual divisions of the overall readership, rather than an inclusive term--the way that most laymen read it--I was referring to the "PC audience" among the various other audiences of the HP books. My mistake for being unclear. And, I didn't say that a book had to be 100% homegenous. It's just that, sometimes, the mentions of aspects of racial/ethnic diversity in publications appear to be "self-conscious" insertions that don't appear to have an intrisic purpose in the story rather than a natural part of the work. When I write, there is racial diversity because it is MY intent, not the intent of outsiders who think that they know better than I do what people ought to be reading. > Maybe some people (I wouldn't go so far as to characterize it > as "many" people) are irked by Dean Thomas' race being made explicit > in the U.S. edition. Some of us view it differently, though. Some > of us approach it from the viewpoint that it would be ideal and > inclusive and realistic for there to have been racial diversity in > the books (assuming that this was OK with the author) *from the > start.* That this diversity was added a little late in the game > does not make it less valuable or legitimate. I somehow suspect > that if JKR thought it important that Dean Thomas be white, he'd be > white. Of course it's ideal and inclusive and realistic to have racial diversity at Hogwarts and within the Wizarding World. But what bothers me (and others) is that if it wasn't necessary to make that specific description in the original work, why the heck did it HAVE to be changed for JUST the U.S. audience? It implies that readers in the U.S. are incapable of imagining a group of people in a book as being diverse without having it shoved down the throat. THAT seems to be the sticking point.... it's insulting to a proportion of the U.S. readership, including people who are all for diversity in life and literature. If JKR had put the line in the British version, we wouldn't be discussing it now. > > Some people are so tired of the PC people using social pressure > > to force these kinds of changes that they seem (IMO) to feel > > threatened that these pressures will in turn become reverse > > discrimination. > > Well, Darrin already said it quite well. Everyone in the U.S. gets > to vote with their wallet. Literature, TV shows, movies etc. that > include only the majority race in our diverse culture may find less > of an audience. Members of minority races have every right to > choose what to read or watch, just as those of the majority race do, > I would say. So if anyone is deeply troubled that Dean Thomas is > black in the U.S. edition, they have the right to vote with their > wallet and decline to purchase the books. I NEVER said that I was troubled by Dean Thomas being black... I am troubled by the publishers making a distinct change in an author's original work that had already been published in the UK with text that didn't explicity express the racial characteristics of Dean Thomas. I was expressing an opinion on WHY the publishers may have felt it necessary to make that change. > I fail to see the reason for the irritation people express over a > decision to make a character of a minority race in this instance, > which leads me to worry that something deeper may be at work. And I fail to see the reason why people keep missing the point that it's not whether the character is black, white, or of any other color that is the problem here, but that only in the United States was it felt necessary to PUSH the idea of the character being of a non-majority race. We simply don't know whose idea it was that Dean be a person of color. If it was JKR, then I have no problem with it because it was her intent that he be that way. But the implications of only having the U.S. text explicity stating Dean's race sounds to me as if the change in text was actually a change from what JKR had originally envisioned Dean Thomas to look like, simply to appease a noisy section of audience who want to dictate what people are shown in regards to race or ethnicity in books or films, no matter the original intent of the author. That's where I--and other people--have a problem. I'm not going to be able to discuss this further as I have to go out of town for a week and won't have internet access. Have a good week everyone and I look forward to seeing how the discussion has grown when I get back. Bernadette/RowanRhys "Life's greatest happiness is to be convinced we are loved." - Victor Hugo, Les Miserables, 1862 From minga at idx.com.au Fri Jun 28 03:38:38 2002 From: minga at idx.com.au (mingarooni) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:38:38 -0000 Subject: French Derivatives & Translation Issues In-Reply-To: <008901c21e23$c0d88860$570207c3@Adi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40504 (disclaimer:) I'm a native English speaker but I have read all the books in French as well, as I studied French at University and love reading in it. It's very strange reading Hermione say in French that the Beauxbatons kids must be French! Interstingly Harry asks Ron in the French SS about the house cup and what a prefect, clearly so that French readers get a bit of background into things which are well known in English schools. I'd agree that the translations can be lacking a bit in 'flavour' due to the wordplays that just don't work unless they're in English so have been left out, or little descriptions which have been left out here and there of the French translation. Also, Hagrid and Karkaroff are not given accents in the French translation, but Madame Maxime is! can you imagine Hagrid speaking in normal English??? On the translation of character names, Voldemort stays the same in the French of course, but many characters have their names translated for meaning, Snape becomes Rogue, Filch becomes Rusard, Crouch becomes Croupton, etc. Hooch becomes Bibine, which is intersting because Bibine in French is a bad quality alcoholic drink! (Unless of course Hooch means the same in English and, being Australian, I don't know the slang, forgive me if this is well-known as I haven't researched it). The translation of Hogwarts (Poudlard) is particularly interesting because I originally thought it had nothing to do with the English version, but pou de lard means lice of bacon which is sort of like hog's warts! Hogsmeade, (Pr?-au-Lard) means meadow at the bacon, like hog's meadow. I find it interesting to see the names in the books from a different language's point of view, if you like. I'd be interested to know how much input J.K. Rowling has into how her character names are translated, or whether the translator does what he or she likes. links: http://www.cyance.be/ has a program that gives you many of the translations between the English and French versions of the book. http://www.harrypotter.gallimard-jeunesse.fr/Pages /Presse/Presse08.html Is an interview with the French translator of the books, which talks about what the translation of Muggle means. probably not much use to you but you could try putting it through bablefish i guess :) Sorry if I've bored anyone to death there. Belinda --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Mariuca Mihalache" wrote: > I have only read the books in the Romanian translation so far: many of the names were translated as well (probably for the readers to better grasp the clues about the characters' personality), including Voldemort and Malfoy. > > Voldemort was rendered as "Capdemort", which, although bearing a resemblance of form to the original, has the (quite?) different meaning of "skull", litterally "head of a dead person". > > Malfoy was translated with the equivalent of "badfaith" in Romanian. > > While this may be justified for the reason I mentioned, I nevertheless think that the translations lack the "flavour" of the originals. I am a translator, too, and the way I'd have done it would have been to give the meanings in a footnote and preserve the original names. > > I would be very interested to hear from non-native English speakers how other HP translations managed this kind of thing! If you think that would be too boring for the native speakers, please write to my personal address! > From datalaur at yahoo.com Fri Jun 28 04:39:55 2002 From: datalaur at yahoo.com (datalaur) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 04:39:55 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40505 > I fail to see the reason for the irritation people express over a > decision to make a character of a minority race in this instance, > which leads me to worry that something deeper may be at work. > > Cindy I don't mind there being diversity one bit; in fact, I am very glad when I do find it. 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.) It's bad enough when a work has to be translated to another language, or when a change is intended for clarity (ie, jumper vs sweater*) but to have an author's work changed for some *social* purpose -- no matter how noble -- well, *that* is bowdlerizing, and I find it rather objectionable. After all, when the next noble cause comes along, who knows what 'improvements' will be made? I like my books with all their warts intact, thank you. laur *I do wish that US publishers had kept the verbage intact, adding a glossary or footnotes if they really felt strongly. Good heavens, what's wrong with reading the book as is? I don't buy the 'younger kids will struggle' argument. We have the footnote option after all. To contrast -- the recent game FIFA Soccer has some announcers with very thick (to this ear) accents using British terms and lo! the kids have picked up on that perfectly well. To those who say "well, vote with your pocketbook" -- I didn't really have that option with the first 3 books because I had no idea the books in my store were an Americanized version. Consumers can only exercise a choice when they know there is a choice. Now I know... now I will not buy 'kindler, gentler' versions any more. Bleh. From pen at pensnest.co.uk Fri Jun 28 08:23:05 2002 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:23:05 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Religion in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40506 >Something that has been bothering me for a while: what is everyone's >take on religion in the HP wizarding world? They have references to >and practice such holidays as Christmas and Easter This probably highlights a difference between UK and US practice (I'm assuming you are in the USA). The Christmas holiday is a Big Thing here in the UK. Christmas Day itself is a public holiday, as is Boxing Day (26th December), so that the vast majority of people are on holiday for those days. Christmas Day combines the Feast of Turkey with the Grand Gift Exchange, plus every TV and radio station's best efforts. (The Queen's Christmas message is broadcast.) Usually, though, cinemas, theatres and other places of entertainment are closed (cos the employees are on holiday, natch), so Christmas Day is very much an 'at-home-with-the-family' day. (From Boxing Day onwards, the 'January' sales begin, but that's different.) Some people go to church. I won't hazard a guess at a percentage, but I do believe that for most of us, Christmas does not involve religious practice. Should Christmas Day fall on a Monday, or Boxing Day on a Friday, we have in effect a four-day weekend - and then New Year's Day is also a public holiday. In fact, for a lot of people, there is essentially a full week off work at this time of year. The remnant 'working' days within the Christmas week are fairly lightweight, by and large, except for those who work in shops... Those very shops which have, since perhaps September, certainly October, been offering Christmas goods for sale. (You have Thanksgiving, to stave off the vendors' approach to Christmas. We don't.) What this boils down to is that there is culturally an expectation of a Christmas holiday. Perhaps I should say, a midwinter festival focused on the 25th December. I don't know whether members of non-Christian religions celebrate the gift-giving season, but atheists do - because it's a part of our culture, of our annual rhythm. In other words, Christmas is not primarily a religious holiday for us. We understand and acknowledge the religious component (there are carol services broadcast, and church services, and programmes with religious content, for instance - and people may go carol singing, or may attend church), but essentially, Christmas is a _holiday_ rather than a _religious holiday_. Easter is not such a grand occasion. (This is a clue, too - Easter is the greatest of the Christian festivals, but culturally definitely takes second place to Christmas.) We do, again, have Bank Holidays (ie public holidays) on Good Friday and Easter Monday, but instead of going into mourning on the former and ecstatic rejoicing on Easter Sunday, we are quite likely to be out shopping on the Friday and overindulging in chocolate in front of the telly on the Sunday and Monday. The religious origins of the holiday are acknowledged but - to many, if not most people - not particularly important. The school year, however, is divided into three terms. Autumn term (Sept - Dec) ends with the Christmas holidays. Spring term (Jan - March) ends with the Easter Holidays. Summer Term (April - July) ends with the Summer Holidays. We could say, the winter holidays, the spring holidays, but we don't. So JKR is following UK cultural patterns. Phew. As for your further comments on the supernatural...it is my impression that UK society is a great deal more secular than US society. It seems perfectly normal to me that Harry & Co do not, for instance, pray before bedtime, or say grace before meals, or attend worship regularly. In fact, it would surprise me if they did do these things. So there is no problem in simply avoiding the whole question of religion in the books - just ignore it, as so many of us do in our daily lives. Pen yet it doesn't > >seem to make sense that they would be Christian, since in the Bible it > >was said that "You shall not allow a sorcerer/ess to live." Perhaps > >wizards are Christian, and regard sorcery as different from wizarding > >magic (perhaps sorcery is what the Dark Wizards practice?) and thus > >abide by that rule by hunting out the practitioners of sorcery... but > >that seems like a stretch, and wizards on the whole seem to be a very > >pragmatic people. > > > >All of the normal things they deal with every day- giants, vampires, > >magic itself- are supernatural in Muggle eyes, which perhaps makes > >wizards seem beyond Muggle religion as we know it... but do wizards > >have their own concept of the supernatural themselves? Is there > >anything that is supernatural to -them- (other than Muggle science) as > >their world is supernatural to us? Does it seem like wizards would > >have/believe in angels? Demons? Gods? > > > >-Rei > > > > > >________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 the >Yahoo! Terms of Service. From pen at pensnest.co.uk Fri Jun 28 08:38:15 2002 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:38:15 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) In-Reply-To: References: <00d301c21e33$5bfd7da0$c921b0d8@kerelsen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40507 Cindy wrote: >Maybe some people (I wouldn't go so far as to characterize it >as "many" people) are irked by Dean Thomas' race being made explicit >in the U.S. edition. Some of us view it differently, though. Some >of us approach it from the viewpoint that it would be ideal and >inclusive and realistic for there to have been racial diversity in >the books (assuming that this was OK with the author) *from the >start.* That this diversity was added a little late in the game >does not make it less valuable or legitimate. I somehow suspect >that if JKR thought it important that Dean Thomas be white, he'd be >white. Just to point out that there is definitely racial diversity in the books, in that we have the Patil girls, Cho Chang, Lee Jordan and Angelina Johnson. For someone in the UK, the surname Patil, and indeed the forenames Padma and Parvati, would strongly suggest an Asian (as in Indian subcontinent) origin, with never a word needing to be said about skin colour. Cho Chang suggests an Oriental/Far Eastern origin. Lee Jordan's dreadlocks are referred to - and that suggests a West Indian origin. Angelina Johnson is explicitly mentioned in passing as black, necessary because the name does not contain any clues. I see no reason to object to Dean Thomas being mentioned as black, either - whyever not? Maybe JKR was already thinking of him as black, and the rectification of her omission of his name at the Sorting was an opportunity to mention it. Thereafter, of course, a person's ethnic origin is never relevant - the only distinction drawn is between wizard and Muggle blood, so it's possible to miss the fact that Hogwarts is a multicoloured place (which appears to be in reasonable proportion with the multicolouredness of, say, my own children's school). And of course, if you are in the USA, where surnames are so vastly more diverse than they are here, the particular clues to origin which are obvious to UK dwellers may not flag the same way. I think, myself, that it's rather nice to see that nobody cares in the slightest what colour a fellow pupil is. Pen From selah_1977 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 28 08:50:27 2002 From: selah_1977 at yahoo.com (selah_1977) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:50:27 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40508 Cindy: > > I fail to see the reason for the irritation people express over a > > decision to make a character of a minority race in this instance, > > which leads me to worry that something deeper may be at work. > > > > Cindy laur: > It's bad enough when a work has to be translated to another language, or when a change is intended for clarity (ie, jumper vs sweater*) but to have an author's work changed for some *social* purpose -- no matter how noble -- well, *that* is bowdlerizing, and I find it rather objectionable. After all, when the next noble cause comes along, who knows what 'improvements' will be made? > > I like my books with all their warts intact, thank you. Warty veteran listee here... interesting conversation, so I'm stepping out of lurkdom to respond. And after reading the entirety of the thread, I am going to risk the wrath of the Mod Squad and post this here, rather than to OT-Chatter. Really, isn't the rationale behind the mention of Dean and Angelina's races quite obvious indeed? I really don't think that TPTB at Scholastic were attempting to "force" diversity down JKR's throat; judging from some of the themes that she's consciously chosen for her novels, I doubt they would have to. JKR has said in interviews that she has biographies written for all of her major characters (and some who we feel are minor) from birth to death. The Scholastic editions of SS were printed well after the Bloomsbury editions of PS. JKR's own canon, as she writes and reflects, has been tweaked and adjusted... from the reprinted eds of GoF that corrected the Wand Order issue to the Various Odds and Ends that she whispered in Kloves' ear during the making of PS/SS. Are we so certain she objected? How do we know that it wasn't her idea in the first place? Names are a usual signifier for a character's background. One reason why Dean and Angelina's races may have been specifically mentioned in SS (American ed. only) and in GoF (both Br. and Amer. eds.) while those of other characters were not is because due to imperialism and slavery, many persons of African descent in Anglophone countries have names that give no clue to their race. For instance, I share a last name with Dean. I'm also of the same racial background. Whenever my name is written down, the first name that my parents gave me usually gives people a clue about what ethnic group I'm from. Everyone else in my immediate family has names that are just as ethnically ambiguous as our last name. Unfortunately, this means people make assumptions. My mother has phoned ahead to make reservations or appointments and then arrived in person to the tune of utter shock... "I didn't know you were black!" So to me, it made utter sense that just as we know that Cho is Chinese because of her name, just as we know the Patils are likely Indian because of their name, that the qualifiers were added to Dean and Angelina so that one could imagine them just as we can imagine Draco to Dudley. The mentions didn't make me feel unduly uncomfortable, but neither did they validate my love for these stories--my other favorite children's author is Lucy Maud Montgomery, whose characters are entirely white. Most of the books I own feature casts of characters who are entirely white as well. Even in Harry Potter, my favorite character is Hermione by far, followed by Harry, after that Sirius, Hagrid, Percy Weasley, Angelina Johnson, McGonagall and Dumbledore. I didn't pick them because of their race; I picked them because there is a facet in each of them that I identified with when I read the books. Now, I got involved in Harry Potter fandom because of my students. I teach American adolescents, the very group that the Scholastic publishers supposedly want to provide more diversity for. Almost all of my students are "of color"--whether black or Asian or Indian or Arabic or *whatever*. If it makes those irritated by the supposed PC tone of the books feel any better, my students really couldn't care less about the inclusion or lack thereof of ethnic characters. They don't even talk about them, they talk about Harry and Ron and Draco and the Dursleys--the characters who are at the focal point of the books. So why make it a point to mention there are characters of color in the book? Well, for one thing, it did teach some of my students something more about the world around them. The *only* time I hear anything about race and Harry Potter mentioned by one of my kids is in the following context--"I didn't know there were any Chinese kids in England." The fact is that there are definitely not many--I understand the UK is nowhere nearly as ethnically diverse as the US-- I've there. However, the fact is that modern Britain does have a population children who are not ethnically Anglo. The British know this, but my students did not. They need to know. Why do children need to know? Well, there's an idea here in America of "a place for everything, and everything in its place." We have our idea of what is British, what is Japanese, what is Brazilian, and when those ideas are challenged, it is unsettling. So when the average American meets the woman with a Thai name and British accent, the boy with African-American parents who lived all his life in Japan and knows nothing of the ghetto, or the girl with blonde hair and blue eyes from Brazil with a brother who is the swarthy stereotypical Latino, there is a tendency to reject the person's positionality as incorrect. I've met all three of these people and found myself momentarily unsettled--and then realized that my *own* prejudices were at work, notions gleaned from books and television and films. What has helped me understand the way that race, ethnicity and culture work together in literature is by reading the greats in the field of postcolonial literary studies. Frantz Fanon, Edward Said, Homi Bhabha, Henry Louis Gates, Robert Young, Simon Gikhandi, Paulo Freire, Gayatri Spivak--while I don't agree with 100% of what they have to say, their essays and books do an excellent job of explaining what imperialism *was* and how the past 500 years affected the positionality of peoples of color in our current discourse. The "forced" mention of race in Harry Potter--and this entire discussion--is an excellent example of what these writers discuss in their most recent works. There has been a great deal of examination about how imperialism affected the "Third World"--the world of color-- the colonized. Now the tide has turned, and the emphasis is on how the periphery of the imperial sphere affected the metropole. Highly recommended for those who are disquieted by some of the issues we've mentioned here--especially Gikhandi, who specifically mentions London demographics. (Here, Eb bites her tongue to stop herself from rattling on and on in Hermione-fashion about the Last Amazing Thing she read.) Disclaimer: I am not advocating some forced, we-are-the-world, dreaming-in-technicolor version of the world. Excuse my language, but we've all read the politically correct multicultural bullcrap written solely for the purpose of promoting multiculturalism, and really, it is *crap*. Just like in so-called evangelical fiction, whenever a writer has a sociopolitical agenda as their primary reason for writing, the flow of the narrative is disrupted, subjugated by the all-encompassing need to proselytize. Stories like that are uninteresting and annoying... and if any of us felt that way about Harry Potter, we wouldn't be here. Dean and Angelina are black. Scholastic made a point to mention the former; for some reason, JKR chose to mention the latter. So what? Draco and Dudley are blonde. Harry has green eyes. Fleur's got the body of a goddess. That is not politically correct. That's just *correct*. --Ebony AKA AngieJ From elfundeb at aol.com Fri Jun 28 11:31:11 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 07:31:11 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) Message-ID: <9a.27af730a.2a4da2ff@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40509 In a message dated 6/27/2002 11:21:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, cindysphynx at comcast.net writes: > > Let's assume the absolute worst. Let's assume that some U.S. > publicist type contacted his or her counterpart in the U.K. and > said, "You know, we would reach a broader audience here in the U.S. > if we made a character black. How about Dean Thomas?" > > If I understand your argument, Bernadette, it sounds like this would > be a bad thing. Tokenism, reverse discrimination or some such. Yet > you indicated that you already viewed the wizarding world as > racially diverse in your own mind. So why would this change bother > you? What I can't quite figure out is why it makes *any difference* > to someone who says she viewed the books as multi-racial in the > first instance? If it were me and I already assumed that the > wizarding world were diverse, I would merely shrug at the change in > Dean Thomas' race (I say "change" assuming, of course, that he > wasn't always intended to be black). > The reasons why the insertion of Dean Thomas into the sorting bothers me (and I can't see any reason for it except to emphasize student diversity at Hogwarts, because the British edition remains unchanged) are: (1) the point had already been effectively made, in my mind, by the earlier mention of Lee Jordan's dreadlocks, even though perhaps British readers might have been tipped off by his enthusiasm for the West Ham football team, and (2) more importantly, the insertion was botched to create the ridiculous statement that there were only three students left to be sorted followed by the sorting of four additional students. This apparent error, which does not appear to have been corrected in subsequent editions (one of my copies was purchased fairly recently), contributed to my impression on first reading PS/SS (and I did notice it immediately) that it was a sloppily written book. Had the editorial error not been made, so that the text made reference to four students left to be sorted, the change might have gone largely unnoticed, in which case in all likelihood this discussion would not be taking place. Even if it had been noticed, had the change been made correctly I think I would have accepted the explanation that we would not have understood that West Ham was a heavily minority area and saved my annoyance for the title change and the heavy-handed insertion of Americanisms into the text. Debbie (only about 200 posts left to catch up on) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From abigailnus at yahoo.com Fri Jun 28 12:32:32 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:32:32 -0000 Subject: Cruciatus and Imperius (Some TBAY), Dark Magic Power Boosts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40510 A truly evil thought occurred to me while reading this post, and even though it is (a) not exactly related and (b) rather short, I feel compelled to post it. It actually ties in to a longer post I've been meaning to write on the nature of Harry's abilities, but until I can sort it out in my head (and find time in the middle of final exams to write it), this will have to do. Elkins writes, about Imperius: > I also found myself wondering about Crouch Jr's growing ability to > throw off the Imperius Curse for short periods of time in the months > leading up to the QWC. I suggested that this might be related in > some way to Voldemort's return to England, that perhaps Voldemort's > newly embodied state and physical proximity might in some > metaphysical way have strengthened the will of those servants > bound to him by the Dark Mark. > > Cindy wrote: > > > But how about an alternative theory? A theory that explains all of > > the pesky, FLINT-y problems with the Imperius Curse? How about if > > the Imperius Curse is only as strong as the wizard casting it? Let's accept that Crouch Jr.'s ability to throw off his father's Imperius is really due to Voldemort's growing strengh and his return to a physical body (and I think this makes a lot of sense, especially since the Dark Mark also returns as LV grows stronger.) We know another character, who is not a DE, who has drawn qualities from the Dark Lord before. That person is Harry. Dumbledore clearly states in CoS that attributes of Voldemort's attached themselves to Harry when the Avada Kedavra failed. What if a similar connection to the one that has been suggested between Voldemort and the DEs now exists between Voldemort and Harry? It explains why Harry is able to throw off a relatively benevolent suggestion in class by Crouch Jr., and later, when Voldemort himself Imperiuses him, it's actually Voldemort's strengh (either magical strengh or strengh of will, I think a good case can be made for either of these, or both, affecting the quality of a wizard's Imperius) fighting itself, which is why Harry manages to throw the Imperius off - all he needs is to tip the scales a bit. This suggests that at the final confrontation, Harry may find himself having to destroy a part of himself in order to destroy Voldemort. It also gives a boost to the whole "Harry will die at the end of the series" contingent (strangely, this is the second time I've made a suggestion that strenghens that theory, and I don't even believe in it.) It also helps, in my opinion, to clear up a scene in GoF that has always bothered me. It's the one where Crouch Jr., masquerading as Moody, tries to help Harry to find a way to overcome the Dragon in the first task. He tells him to play to his strenghs, and Harry immediately thinks that the only thing he's really good at is Quidditch. That's never made any sense to me. I know that Harry is both modest and friends with Hermione, which could make anyone undervalue their magical abilities, but he must have noticed by now that he's no magical slouch. Why, only a few months before he conjured a powerful Patronus, which many adult and fully trained wizards are incapable of (OK, he knew he could do it, but the point is that he *could* do it.) We know that James Potter was a good Quidditch player, so it's a fair assumption that Harry's skill at the game has been inherited from him. What if Harry senses on some subconcious level that his abilities, the level of his magical power (note that I'm not suggesting that all of Harry's magic comes from LV, just it's level at his early age), aren't exactly *his*? Which is why, when queried about his strenghs, he turns to the one thing that really feels natural, as though it comes from him and not from an outside source. I'm already seeing problems with this idea - the timelines don't exactly work. Does Harry's exra strengh come from a one-time bond with Voldemort at the time of the AK or is it a connection that still exists and grows stronger as Voldemort does? I'll think some more about it and hopefull come up with some clarification, but I'm still going to post becaue I really like this idea - this is supposed to be one of the points of the longer post I'm hoping to write (although this post seems to have gone on for quite a bit as well), but I really don't like the notion of Harry as the "special child" with superpowers or the prophecied saviour. I like the thought that Harry's magical strenght derives from evil, and that it will have to be returned in order for good to triumph. Abigail From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri Jun 28 13:20:14 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 13:20:14 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) In-Reply-To: <001f01c21e5e$79b8aba0$8721b0d8@kerelsen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40511 Bernadette wrote: > Then I think that you are seeing a different issue here than I am > seeing. I'm not seeing it as a bunch of people saying "How dare > you make a character black," but rather as "How dare you make > changes from the original text just to appease a particular group > of people." Actually, I feel fairly confident that we are discussing the same issue, but that we simply disagree. OK, let me go at this a bit differently. Let's put Dean Thomas aside for just a minute and go with a hypothetical. Let's say that in the original PS, all students are able-bodied. The sorting of Hanah Abbott is in the original text as follows: "A pink-faced girl with blonde pigtails stumbled out of line, put on the hat, which fell right down over her eyes, and sat down." Let's then say that some publicist decides the book is not sufficiently inclusive because there are no children using wheelchairs, and the publicist doesn't want to receive a bunch of letters complaining about this. The text in SS is re-written as follows: "A pink-faced girl with blonde pigtails rolled her wheelchair out of line, put on the hat, which fell right down over her eyes." I suspect that members of this list would notice this clumsy change, because we notice *everything.* But I doubt anyone would resent it or suggest that this is an example of the disabled lobby throwing their weight around, that it is tokenism, that the author's intent has been corrupted, that American literature and media are no good because of this sort of thing, that it is annoying, that it is toadying, that it is pushy, that it is reverse discrimination. Perhaps some people *would* say exactly that, but I personally wouldn't bat an eye at this change. Maybe I'm wrong there and there *would* be a chorus of outrage that an able-bodied character was made to be disabled, but it's not a complaint I hear very often in other contexts. Similarly, if we imagine that the British version contained no mention of Dean Thomas' height, but the American version described him as "tall," no one would care. That suggests to me that perhaps some people are reacting strongly and primarily to the fact that the change involves race. For some reason, then, when Dean Thomas' *race* is changed, some people become highly irritated. What, exactly, is the difference between what was done with Dean (setting aside inadvertent FLINT-y matters such as the number of students remaining to be sorted) and my hypothetical with Hanah Abbott or my hypothetical involving Dean's height? >A friend of mind dislikes tokenism, because, to > her mind, it's like a giant neon sign flashing "Look! We're good > guys because we are consciously promoting a minority cultural > character to prove that we don't discriminate!" She said that it > implies that unless she proves by specifying a particular > character as being of color or other ethnic difference, then she > is guilty of discrimination, even if in her head when she created > the characters, she didn't see them as non-racially/ethnically > diverse. Two things here. Your friend should understand that referring to racial diversity as "tokenism" will cause people like me to bristle every time, because it really does trivialize our concerns. I find it rather inflammatory and insulting, to be honest with you. I would say that people who appreciate diversity in literature and media do *not* want to see tokens; they want to see diversity -- a recognition that people of all races can make a contribution to the work being written or produced. Second, I suppose that your friend is feeling some pressure to be inclusive when she writes. I'm sorry she finds this upsetting, but the fact that she has a vision in her head of racial diversity is of no consequence if she doesn't translate that into her work and share it with others. If her characters truly are diverse, I see no reason for her having such difficulty actually saying so on the page. She should be delighted that her own internal vision of diversity will likely be embraced should she choose to share it. > And, I didn't say that a book had to be 100% homegenous. It's > just that, sometimes, the mentions of aspects of racial/ethnic > diversity in publications appear to be "self-conscious" > insertions that don't appear to have an intrisic purpose in the > story rather than a natural part of the work. When I write, > there is racial diversity because it is MY intent, not the intent > of outsiders who think that they know better than I do what > people ought to be reading. See, this is what is so odd to me. If we say that Ron is pale and has red hair and freckles, that's OK. If we say Angelina is black, that's "self-conscious;" that it has no "intrinsic purpose." Why should there be a different standard that requires a *purpose* for the inclusion of Angelina's race but no purpose for the inclusion of Ron's race? As far as the relationship between the author and publisher, I don't have a lot to say. Except this. I don't see much basis for the assumption that JKR had this changed forced on her. She is so powerful now that if SS is still being published with Dean Thomas as black, it is because JKR either does not object to it or embraces it. >But what > bothers me (and others) is that if it wasn't necessary to make > that specific description in the original work, why the heck did > it HAVE to be changed for JUST the U.S. audience? Again, this goes back to my suggestion that we shouldn't require that a desire to increase diversity in a book or specify the race of a character be strictly *necessary.* So why did it have to be changed JUST for the US audience? That's an interesting question. I assume from it that if Dean Thomas' race had been changed in the British version also, no one would be complaining. I would say that mentioning Dean Thomas' race was never strictly *necessary* in either the British version or the US version. It's just more inclusive, IMO. As you can see, I just don't happen to think the relevant inquiry is whether specifying race is "necessary," any more than I think Ron's hair color should be a secret because it is not "necessary" to specify it. The issue in my mind, then, is whether I should be annoyed that Dean's race wasn't amended in the *UK* version. I'm not, because this discussion suggests that there were reasons to think UK readers understand certain other reference that imply racial diversity at Hogwarts in a way that US readers might not. >It implies > that readers in the U.S. are incapable of imagining a group of > people in a book as being diverse without having it shoved down > the throat. THAT seems to be the sticking point.... it's > insulting to a proportion of the U.S. readership, including > people who are all for diversity in life and literature. Again, why should the race of black characters be left to the imagination, but the race of white characters can be specified? In other words, why is it "shoving race down the throat" (again, that is another rather loaded phrase) when the race of a black character is mentioned, but it is not when the race of a white character is established? I am surprised by the idea that the problem here is that people are insulted because they weren't given proper credit for *imagining* diversity and instead were given straightforward information about the race of a single character. > And I fail to see the reason why people keep missing the point > that it's not whether the character is black, white, or of any > other color that is the problem here, but that only in the United > States was it felt necessary to PUSH the idea of the character > being of a non-majority race. We simply don't know whose idea it > was that Dean be a person of color. If it was JKR, then I have > no problem with it because it was her intent that he be that way. > But the implications of only having the U.S. text explicity > stating Dean's race sounds to me as if the change in text was > actually a change from what JKR had originally envisioned Dean > Thomas to look like, simply to appease a noisy section of > audience who want to dictate what people are shown in regards to > race or ethnicity in books or films, no matter the original > intent of the author. Again, you're making some assumptions there. First, I think you're assuming that specifying Dean Thomas' race is "PUSH[ing]" an idea. I don't understand that point of view; you could easily see the change as correcting an omission, providing detail, enhancing the reader's visual image. Second, people seem quite willing to assume that JKR doesn't support this change. I don't see the basis for that, either. Most importantly, however, I personally am quite grateful for the "noisy section of the audience" (yet another loaded phrase, because I doubt the people to whom you refer would like to see their concerns dismissed as "noise"). The "noise," I take it, is the willingness of some patrons to express their dissatisfaction with homogenous racial portrayals in books and media (all too frequently all-white portrayals) in a society that is tremendously diverse. Perhaps the trend toward having the racial diversity in the U.S. reflected in literature and media is annoying to some, but there are usually plenty of white characters that these folks can focus on and identify with if the presence of minority characters is bothersome to them. Debbie: >(1) the point had already been effectively made, in my mind, by the >earlier mention of Lee Jordan's dreadlocks, even though perhaps >British readers might have been tipped off by his enthusiasm for >the West Ham football team . . . Two points here. First, the mention of Lee Jordan's dreadlocks does not establish that he is black. It's a strong clue, but it isn't conclusive. I have personally seen white people who choose to wear their hair in dreadlocks. (Actually, when I first read this description, I found it rather awkward and I raised an eyebrow as I wondered whether this was an attempt to communicate that Lee was black; it wasn't until I saw the movie that I felt sure he was black.) The description of dreadlocks is a strong clue, but it doesn't necessarily mean Lee Jordan is black, to me anyway. Second, and more importantly, the fact that there is a single black character (Lee Jordan) does not make the addition of a second black character superfluous in my mind. If the publishers and/or author decided they wanted to be clear that Hogwarts has black students, then specifying Dean Thomas' race seems a reasonable and straightforward way to go about it, IMHO. Cindy From dixonm at pobox.com Fri Jun 28 07:28:22 2002 From: dixonm at pobox.com (dixonm at pobox.com) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:28:22 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: French Derivatives & Translation Issues In-Reply-To: References: <008901c21e23$c0d88860$570207c3@Adi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40512 On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 03:38:38 -0000, you wrote: >Hooch becomes Bibine, which is intersting because >Bibine in French is a bad quality alcoholic drink! (Unless of course >Hooch means the same in English and, being Australian, I don't know >the slang, forgive me if this is well-known as I haven't researched >it). That's what "hooch" means in American English, all right, with an additional implication that the stuff is illicit -- either smuggled in or illegally manufactured. -- Meredith Dixon Check out *Raven Days*: http://www.ravendays.org For victims and survivors of bullying. And for those who want to help. From bard7696 at aol.com Fri Jun 28 13:35:37 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 13:35:37 -0000 Subject: A question about Fred and George's Quidditch bet... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40513 Has it ever -- OK, stupid question, I'm sure it has ... WHERE has it been discussed, and what was the conclusion as to the amazing foresight of Fred and George in making that Quidditch bet with Ludo Bagman? Betting your entire stake on a highly unusual result in Quidditch -- the losing team's seeker catching the Snitch -- seems foolhardy, even for slightly flaky fellows like the twins. I read in the HP for Grownups website that there is speculation that Ron is a seer. Does this weird and successful (setting aside that Bagman wormed out of paying them in real gold) wager indicate that there are seer abilities in the family? Darrin -- Searching desperately for a topic that is fresh and new From whatev at over-the-rainbow.com Fri Jun 28 11:17:22 2002 From: whatev at over-the-rainbow.com (frabjabulous) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:17:22 -0000 Subject: Humour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40514 > > What are everyone's favourite funny parts in HP? > > > > Rosie > > All the parts with Lockhart... the dueling club practice, meeting Harry at the book signing, when he released all the pixies by mistake... Can't wait for the movie, hope its just as funny! frabjabulous From ksnidget at aol.com Fri Jun 28 13:21:22 2002 From: ksnidget at aol.com (ksnidget at aol.com) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:21:22 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Cruciatus and Imperius (Some TBAY), Dark Magic Power Boo Message-ID: <73991123.519D27D1.007B4FA9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40515 Abigail wrote >That's never made any sense to me. I know that Harry is both modest and >friends with Hermione, which could make anyone undervalue their magical >abilities, but he must have noticed by now that he's no magical slouch. Why, >only a few months before he conjured a powerful Patronus, which many adult >and fully trained wizards are incapable of (OK, he knew he could do it, but >the point is that he *could* do it.) We know that James Potter was a good >Quidditch player, so it's a fair assumption that Harry's skill at the game has >been inherited from him. What if Harry senses on some subconcious level that >his abilities, the level of his magical power (note that I'm not suggesting that >all of Harry's magic comes from LV, just it's level at his early age), aren't >exactly *his*? Which is why, when queried about his strenghs, he turns to the >one thing that really feels natural, as though it comes from him and not from >an outside source. I think the "I don't have any" response is indicative of his frame of mind. Often when people are stressed out, depressed, feeling woefully inadequate (after all he keep noticing how tall the other champions are) or unprepared it is fairly typical for people to underplay strengths and overplay weaknesses. I think that response (besides creating an opening for Crouch Jr.) to give advice thus forwarding the plot) is there because of how he is feeling about the tournament. After all we have all the signs that he is anxious about it and it would IMO seem weird for him to come up with a long list of strengths at a time when he is that nervous about the upcoming task. KSnidget From nplyon at yahoo.com Fri Jun 28 13:25:07 2002 From: nplyon at yahoo.com (nplyon) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 13:25:07 -0000 Subject: French Derivatives & Translation Issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40516 "mingarooni" wrote: > Hooch becomes Bibine, which is intersting because > Bibine in French is a bad quality alcoholic drink! (Unless of course > Hooch means the same in English and, being Australian, I don't know > the slang, forgive me if this is well-known as I haven't researched > it). > I know that, at least in US English, hooch is a word for low-quality liquor, the kind of stuff someone's grandfather might have made in his bathtub during Prohibition. In fact, there's currently a lemon- flavored malt beverage on the market in the US that is called Hooch. Do British English speakers use hooch in this way as well? This makes me wonder if the company that translated the book from English into French used American or British translators. This just makes me very glad that I am a native English speaker as it's sad to think that a lot of the wit of JKR's writing was lost in the translation to other languages. At any rate, I question the necessity of translating the names into French. I mean, when I read an English translation of Les Mis?rables, it's not as if Marius has been changed to Bob and Eponine to Chrissy. ~Nicole, who hopes she's not veering too OT here. From Robert.Scott at acxiom.com Fri Jun 28 13:43:15 2002 From: Robert.Scott at acxiom.com (thexrob) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 13:43:15 -0000 Subject: A question about Fred and George's Quidditch bet... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40517 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "darrin_burnett" wrote: > Betting your entire stake on a highly unusual result in Quidditch -- > the losing team's seeker catching the Snitch -- seems foolhardy, even > for slightly flaky fellows like the twins. Wobby Dobby writes: That seemed like a fairly obvious ending to me. Ireland was by far the superior team, but Krum was by far the superior seeker. So, if the snitch wasn't caught before the point difference surpassed 150pts, giving Bulgaria the win, then Bulgaria would never catch up and Krum would still want to get the snitch before Ireland's seeker. "Wobby Dobby" From meboriqua at aol.com Fri Jun 28 14:25:58 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:25:58 -0000 Subject: Religion in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40518 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "c_voth312" wrote: > Actually, since Christmas and Easter are, in addition to their > religious connotations, rather major secular celebrations as well, > there's no reason to believe that enjoying those celebrations makes > the wizards Christian.> *Sigh* Jews don't traditionally celebrate either of these holidays. Even though many Jews now celebrate Christmas (which bothers me), most do not, and I have yet to meet one who ever celebrated Easter at all. I am a Reformed Jew and while I was not raised in a kosher household and I was Bat Mitzvahed, we never had a Christmas tree in our home and Passover is still the holiday we acknowledge. I don't think JKR sat down and thought "Okay, my Wizarding World is all Christian", but I'm willing to bet that she is, and most of the people she knows are, too. If JKR was Jewish, she would have most likely changed the wording of these holidays to something more generic, like Winter Holidays or Spring Break. I just don't think she thought about it one way or the other. --jenny from ravenclaw ********************************** From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Jun 28 14:16:00 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:16:00 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Cruciatus and Imperius (Some TBAY), Dark Magic Power Boosts References: Message-ID: <000101c21eb2$935aab40$609ecdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 40519 Abigail writes: >Dumbledore clearly states in CoS that attributes of Voldemort's attached >themselves to Harry when the Avada Kedavra failed. What if a similar >connection to the one that has been suggested between Voldemort and >the DEs now exists between Voldemort and Harry? It explains why Harry >is able to throw off a relatively benevolent suggestion in class by Crouch Jr., >and later, when Voldemort himself Imperiuses him, it's actually Voldemort's >strengh (either magical strengh or strengh of will, I think a good case can >be made for either of these, or both, affecting the quality of a wizard's >Imperius) fighting itself, which is why Harry manages to throw the Imperius >off - all he needs is to tip the scales a bit. Well whether it's Voldemort's strength fighting itself or not, Harry had been taught (by Crouch Jr) to throw it off. It took quite a few tries to perfect it and a couple of banged up knees. I'm still not quite sure why Crouch Jr was so intent that Harry learn to throw it off. I understood it fine when I thought he was Moody. I can only guess that it was a further way to make him look like the real Moody. 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? >find a way to overcome the Dragon in the first task. He tells him to play >to his strenghs, and Harry immediately thinks that the only thing he's really >good at is Quidditch. > >That's never made any sense to me. I know that Harry is both modest and >friends with Hermione, which could make anyone undervalue their magical >abilities, but he must have noticed by now that he's no magical slouch. Why, >only a few months before he conjured a powerful Patronus, which many adult I think this (Harry's seeming lack of belief in his magical abilities) may come from a couple of things. One, he still may have an inferiority complex from his childhood where he never had any friends, no one ever told him he was good at anything, etc. The other theory I have about that comes from the movie "The Matrix." (If you haven't seen it you may totally miss my point. Sorry!) When Neo goes to the the Oracle, she tells him he's not The One. Well he is, but she told him what he needed to hear. She made him think he wasn't really anything special, yet that is how he became so powerful. Perhaps Harry is like this. He needs to think he's just an average wizard so that he won't get full of himself, and eventually may become the greatest wizard of all time (or however you want to think about it). Richelle From nobradors at hotmail.com Fri Jun 28 14:48:53 2002 From: nobradors at hotmail.com (nuriaobradors) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:48:53 -0000 Subject: What does Harry do for YOU? In-Reply-To: <9bku8o+a52e@eGroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40520 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., sabrinarae77 at y... wrote: > I am a college student writing a paper on why Harry Potter is great > for adults and kids. I would like some feedback/personal opinions > about why you like Harry Potter. Thanks. > > Sabrina Though I knew of the madness of zillions of kids and not-so-kids from all around the globe about Harry Potter, I hadn't read any of the books until the movie was out. Sort of scepticism, I believe. The whole Harry Potter thing here in Argentina was aimed exclusively at children, too. Then I thought well, I'll watch the movie (I had loved the trailer) and if it's that good I'll read the book. And then Harry Potter did magic. My mom is a woman who's been deceited in life and over the last years she's become sort of bitter and doesn't get out of the house except to the grocer's, know what I mean? She always says she loves cinema but we've had a multi-cinema 6 blocks from home for about 5 years now and never went, until... Ma, there's Harry Potter, subtitled, at 1 pm, wanna come? Yes, she said. My friends couldn't believe it when I told them my mom had gone to the cinema. We loved the movie, so the moment I got out I entered the bookstore next to the cinema, owned by my cousin, and said "Harry Potter-in English-Right now" (ther had been several letters from the readers in the newspaper from translators who complained about the poor translation of the HP series). Now why I became such a hopeless 27 y.o. HP fan? Regardless the fact I love stories about magic and magic worlds, and that I usually enjoy children literature, HP books are, IMO, anything but childish. JKR writes about children, and the kids do things according their age, but the books are written in an adult language. There's no political correctness: Harry's parents weren't killed by a big bad wizard; they were killed by Voldemort, and harry relieves the moment in a way which has made me cry more than once. There's no "it's a children story, let's keep the children from those horrid things." JKR also writes in a complex way, making the different subplots intertwine in a brilliant way, creating suspense and planting red herrings here and there. This complexity reaches its highest point when combined with the complexity of the characters. HP characters, even minor characters, are rich and complex. Even if the author tell us barely nothing about them, you can feel there is a fully developed character behind that glimpse we see in the books. The good ones aren't that good and the bad ones have their good moments too (except Voldie, so far)... basically, as someone else said on this list, they're human. You can relate to them, they're not bad just because. And the goodies are no saints. There is no such thing as perfection in the Harry Potter series, and that's what I think makes it so perfect. Nuri From Edblanning at aol.com Fri Jun 28 15:23:18 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:23:18 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: (TBAY) The Biggest of the Hedgehogs Message-ID: <181.a497dbd.2a4dd966@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40521 Judy: > By the way, can someone put a definition of "Hedgehog" into this > thread? I think I know what it means, but I'm not sure. > For Judy and anyone else who's confused, see the entry on The Order of the Flying Hedgehog in Hypothetic Alley, easily accessible via the HPFGU homepage (click on Files, then Admin Files). A hedgehog is one who is accused of being Ever So Evil. Eloise Who would like to make it quite clear that Cindy is *not* allowed to play croquet with this particular hedgehog as it far exceeds regulation size and weight. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From divaclv at aol.com Fri Jun 28 15:28:51 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 15:28:51 -0000 Subject: Religion in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40522 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jenny_ravenclaw" wrote: > *Sigh* Jews don't traditionally celebrate either of these holidays. > Even though many Jews now celebrate Christmas (which bothers me), most > do not, and I have yet to meet one who ever celebrated Easter at all. > I am a Reformed Jew and while I was not raised in a kosher household > and I was Bat Mitzvahed, we never had a Christmas tree in our home and > Passover is still the holiday we acknowledge. Good point, but another thing I think we have to keep in mind is that we see a relatively small percentage of the WW actively celebrating the holidays: Harry, Hermione, the Weasleys, and a handful of Hogwarts faculty and student body members. There's absolutely nothing to indicate that other students aren't at home with their families celebrating Haunnakah, or Ramadan, or whatever. > I don't think JKR sat down and thought "Okay, my Wizarding World is > all Christian", but I'm willing to bet that she is, and most of the > people she knows are, too. If JKR was Jewish, she would have most > likely changed the wording of these holidays to something more > generic, like Winter Holidays or Spring Break. I just don't think she > thought about it one way or the other. > > --jenny from ravenclaw ********************************** Actually, I think it has more to do with the fact that the primary characters observe Christmas and Easter, and so the wording is from *their* perspective, not Rowling's. ~Christi From Edblanning at aol.com Fri Jun 28 15:30:37 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:30:37 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Religion in HP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40523 Jenny from Ravenclaw: > I don't think JKR sat down and thought "Okay, my Wizarding World is > all Christian", but I'm willing to bet that she is, and most of the > people she knows are, too. If JKR was Jewish, she would have most > likely changed the wording of these holidays to something more > generic, like Winter Holidays or Spring Break. I just don't think she > thought about it one way or the other. > But as someone else has pointed out, she is simply following the normal British school holiday pattern, together with its usual names. In this context, the phrases Winter Holidays and Spring Break, though quite neutral in meaning, do sound incredibly American (and rather self-consciously PC) to British ears, strange as that may seem. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From astornightwing at yahoo.com Fri Jun 28 14:15:04 2002 From: astornightwing at yahoo.com (Wendy) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 07:15:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Grandpa Riddle (was Re: Grandpa Voldemort) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020628141504.46239.qmail@web11206.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40524 > Ronale7 writes: > > >I believe Voldemort is Harry's paternal > grandfather.<< > And Richelle replied: > > I still disagree .... I am still convinced...that > Voldemort/Riddle > is Harry's maternal grandfather. < > Then judyserenity wrote: > There's a possibility that Voldemort is Harry's > grandfather. > [Snip] > Could Harry be descended from both Slytherin *and* > Gryffindor? He > could, which would explain the Sorting Hat's > difficulties in placing > him. But, being descended from Slytherin really > isn't neccessary to > explain to explain most features of the plot. Hi everyone, I'm a new member, and didn't plan on posting yet as I haven't yet finished going through the recommended documents etc. but I had an idea about this subject that I wanted to put out for discussion. If it's already been brought up, then I apologize. Tom Riddle's father abandoned his son (and his wife?) because of the magic in their blood. Has anyone considered that maybe Tom Sr. went on to have another child, most likely a daughter? This daughter could, in turn, be EITHER Lily's mother or James' mother. Voldemort, in turn, could have gone and murdered his half-sister and brother-in-law, much in the same way that he killed his own father and grandparents. If this connection were on Lily's side of the family, then that would explain Petunia's extreme fear and distrust of magic a little further. In Petunia's mind, her own parents were murdered by an evil and power-thirsty wizard, therefore all wizards are evil and power-thirsty. If this child were James' mother, and the same thing happened, it might mean that James Potter became even more devoted to fighting Voldemort. It would also make a little more sense for V. to be intent on killing Harry (as Harry would be his great-nephew). I don't remember whether I read this part in the archives or recently, and it might be old, but it would also explain something else. If it is in fact old, then I apologize again :) There was a discussion that I was reading about the word of descendent/ancestor in relation to Voldemort and Salazar Slytherin, and the term "deliberate error" being used about what Dumbledore said (V. being the last ancestor, as it says in the US paperback version). If I'm not mistaken on my definitions here, if James Potter were actually Voldemort's nephew, then Harry *would* be an *ancestor* of Slytherin, but not a descendant. Please correct me or refer me to older messages if this has already been debated at length :) *~*~*~ ~Wendy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From ahector at postmaster.co.uk Fri Jun 28 15:33:21 2002 From: ahector at postmaster.co.uk (Allison Hector) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 16:33:21 +0100 Subject: French Derivatives & Translation Issues Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40525 An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From TaliaDawn3 at aol.com Fri Jun 28 15:34:23 2002 From: TaliaDawn3 at aol.com (TaliaDawn3 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:34:23 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Humour Message-ID: <8.28716b5f.2a4ddbff@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40526 In a message dated 6/28/02 9:41:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, whatev at over-the-rainbow.com writes: > > > What are everyone's favourite funny parts in HP? > > > > > > Rosie > > > My favorite is in CoS, when Ron and Harry first arrive at Hogwarts after getting out of the car and Ron and Harry are discussing why Snape isn't at the table. (CoS p.77 US): "Maybe he's ill!" said Ron hopefully. "Maybe he's left," said Harry, "because he missed out on the Defense Against the Dark Arts job again!" "Or he might have been sacked," said Ron enthustically, "I mean, everyone hates him -" "Or maybe," said a very cold voice right behind them, "he's waiting to hear why you two didn't arrive on the school train." That is the funniest thing ever! (Maybe more so because I do that all the time....I say something about someone and they're right behind me!) I think I blushed for them when I first read it. ~*~*~Talia Dawn~*~*~ What's the Spanish word for caliente? Who's with the band? I'm not with the band? Do you know anyone with the band? I don't know anyone with the band. Is there a band here? I see you shiver, with antici.........................pation. Don't dream it, be it. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. No better way to celebrate a holy day than with demonstration of ignorance. If you can see the bandwagon, it's too late to get on. If you realized how powerful your thoughts are you would never think another negative thought. If you dwell on what you don't want, you'll get more of it. The only time you were ever at peace in your whole life was when you were dead. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nobradors at hotmail.com Fri Jun 28 16:22:56 2002 From: nobradors at hotmail.com (nuriaobradors) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 16:22:56 -0000 Subject: Humour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40527 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "nplyon" wrote: > > > What are everyone's favourite funny parts in HP? > > > > > > Rosie So many!! I love each and every inspired Molly Weasley moments. Adding to the religion-in-HP debate, she looks a total "idishe mame" to me. I totally cracked up when Malfoy said to the polyjuice!Crabbe or Goyle, not sure: if you were any slower, you'd be going backwards. McGonagall's part when she meets the students after their first Trelawney experience and aks Okay, who is going to die this year then, or something like that, and later tells Harry he doesn't need to hand homework in if he dies. Mariuca wrote: >>I have only read the books in the Romanian translation so far: many of the names were translated as well (probably for the readers to better grasp the clues about the characters' personality), including Voldemort and Malfoy. I nevertheless think that the translations lack the "flavour" of the originals. I am a translator, too, and the way I'd have done it would have been to give the meanings in a footnote and preserve the original names. Okay, I live in Argentina so my mother tongue is spanish, but I only read PoA in spanish (before I bought the british version!). The names weren't translated. This is common, we usually don't translate foreign names. If their meaning is crucial to the story, though, foot notes are used to explain it. As the italian say: "traduttore, tradittore" (Translator, traitor). The charms aren't translated either; it would be silly since spanish derives from latin! But I present you with some names in spanish I do remember: Moony: Lun?tico. Means Lunatic. Wormtail: Gusarapo. Means small worm or small critter. Padfoot: Canuto. This is nonsense. a 'canuto' is a small tube or a blowpipe. Prongs: Cornamenta. Means Antlers or horns. Death Eaters: Mort?fagos. Is an acurate yet pretentious translation, IMO. It means mortiphagous. Pretty scientific, eh? Maybe some other spanish-speaking listee who HAS read all the books can give some feedback on this issue? Nuri Off to lunch From dicentra at xmission.com Fri Jun 28 16:27:03 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 16:27:03 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40528 I've got to weigh in on this or I won't be able to get any work done today. I have to side with Cindy on this one, and not just because (a) I think she's the cat's meow, and (b) I have a soft spot for deranged people. ;-) I do share Bernadette's impatience with people whose moral compasses are set to "whichever cause is fashionable today." They tend to be annoying and wearysome and I'm not impressed by them in the least. However, specifying Dean's race in the U.S. edition never struck me as that kind of thing. As it so happens, racial diversity is not a fashionable cause or even a goal, it's a fact of life. The British Isles have welcomed plenty of immigrants from Africa, India, the Middle East, and Asia; many families have been there for generations. It only makes sense that some of them would be wizards. But I know that Bernadette's problem is not with the fact that Dean's heritage is African, it's with the motivations of the publishers for inserting the fact in the U.S. edition. We don't know their motives. They could have been motivated by anything, such as 1) A desire to snag a wider demographic 2) A desire to avoid criticism 3) A desire to appear PC to their publishing friends 4) A desire to clarify for the American public what the British public would already have understood (like changing "jumper" to "sweater") 5) A perverse desire to insert a FLINT at that point 6) A perverse desire to generate controversy (e.g. this thread) Unless we were flies on the wall the day they decided to make the change, we can't really accuse them of being PC or whatever. Besides, as Cindy said, if they'd inserted the detail that he was tall, we'd notice it and maybe complain about it, but we wouldn't really have such a big problem with it. Frankly, I'm more annoyed that they left out Sirius's vault number from the U.S. edition than anything, but I don't accuse Scholastic of frivolous motives. Given that most if not all the textual changes were "translations" from British English to American English, let's just assume that this one is another such clarification and have done with it. --Dicentra, who warns all listies that Cindy is a master debater and you will never win unless she concedes outright, which she won't because she knows she's right From Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk Fri Jun 28 16:35:13 2002 From: Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk (pamscotland) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 16:35:13 -0000 Subject: English does not equal British WAS Re: French Derivatives & Translation Issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40529 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Allison Hector" > I recently spent the fall semester in Bristol and so got to understand the British system much better but I still get a bit confused when it comes to how old people actually are in sixthform/a- levels (what would be the latter part of high school in the US). I don't think years/ages exactly correlate. >When I was younger I was told that British kids had an "extra" year between high school and college. But it's not that simple really. It certainly isn't that simple - it depends where in Britain the British kids are being educated! I think you probably got to know the *English* system much better. Generally, the educational system in Scotland is rather different although there are a very few schools (usually fee-paying private schools) in Scotland that follow the English system. Children in Scotland usually spend 7 years in primary school and then go to their secondary school - so Secondary 1 is year 8. In England they spend six years in primary school so that Secondary 1 is year 7. In Scotland the first public exams are taken in fourth year of secondary school (year 11) - standard grades (formerly Ordinary or O grades). It's a while since I had any contact with the English system so I can't remember what they do now - I think they take first public exams after an extra year in secondary school - so that would be at the same time (the same age) - are you still with me? Now, the next stage in Scottish schools is Highers, usually taken after one more year. In England the Advanced levels (if they still do them) are 2 years after the Ordinary levels (or whatever they are called). In Scottish schools many students stay on to do sixth year studies - as well as some more Highers, or Advanced Highers, or retake Highers if they need them to get into university. However many Scottish students do start university or college at the age of 17 straight from school, whereas 18 would be more usual for a student in England going straight into higher education. On the other hand, many students (in Scotland and in England) take at least one Gap year between school and college (if for no other reason than to build up the bank balance a bit by getting a job). One should never forget that Hogwarts is in Scotland - a British country with its own separate educational system, its own separate legal system and, now, its own Parliament. I sometimes think that JKR put Hogwarts in Scotland not just because she herself lived here but because it sort of represents both inclusion in and independence of a larger and, in some ways, more powerful society - like the Muggle and Wizarding worlds perhaps. Cheers for now Pam From lupinesque at yahoo.com Fri Jun 28 16:54:32 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 16:54:32 -0000 Subject: French Names (Padfoot) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40530 Alley wrote: > I never knew that actual names were translated too. I find it >interesting because we often have to search for meaning within >words that may be striclty in English or have derivitives from other >languages, or other (e.g. mythical) implications. To translate words >that aren't necessarily crystal clear to begin with seems odd. Ah, we were just talking about this on OTC, but I guess it was getting a bit too on-topic so I'll bring it here. Over there, Mercia wrote: > > I'm intrigued by the way, thinking about how things might be > > traslated, with what they do with Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and > > Prongs and I tried to answer but couldn't sort out the word for Padfoot, Padmol. I hadn't read quite far enough; the next page gave me the clues I needed, the words "un molosse" (hound, large dog) and "une patte" (dog's paw). So: Pat-Mol, =something like "Dogfoot." 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. Amy Z who thinks translating "Wow, Hermione!" as "Hou, l?, l?, Hermione!" makes it sound as if she's sent Harry a nude photo of herself instead of a Broomstick Servicing Kit From TaliaDawn3 at aol.com Fri Jun 28 16:01:12 2002 From: TaliaDawn3 at aol.com (TaliaDawn3 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:01:12 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A question about Fred and George's Quidditch bet... Message-ID: <157.100d675a.2a4de248@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40531 In a message dated 6/28/02 9:52:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Robert.Scott at acxiom.com writes: > Wobby Dobby writes: > That seemed like a fairly obvious ending to me. Ireland was by far > the superior team, but Krum was by far the superior seeker. So, if > the snitch wasn't caught before the point difference surpassed > 150pts, giving Bulgaria the win, then Bulgaria would never catch up > and Krum would still want to get the snitch before Ireland's seeker. I would never in a million years have thought of that. Just because Krum wants to get the Snitch doesn't mean he would. I'm not of the school of thought that Ron is a Seer, but I think the Weasley twins might be. Just them predicting something like that makes me think that they are Seers, or at least one of them is. I don't have GoF with me, but whichever one of them suggested to place the bet on Krum getting the Snitch, but Ireland winning, is the one that I think is the Seer. The other one knows to trust what he says because he can see it. TD [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From vincentlawyer at yahoo.com Fri Jun 28 16:16:55 2002 From: vincentlawyer at yahoo.com (vinnygp) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 16:16:55 -0000 Subject: Religion in HP In-Reply-To: <000001c21e52$360d5470$0464a8c0@dellcpi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40532 JKR was wise, I think in skirting the question of religion in the HP series. If some groups object to HP because of the extensive and central role of magic, imagine how much bigger a can of worms would have been opened if JKR had combined it with religion. I have formulated a few theories in my spare time concerning the role of religion in HP. First, the observance of Cristmas and Easter vacation. The festival seasons of the Winter Solstice and Vernal Equinox have existed for thousands of years. Perhaps the British magical community is simply celebrating the changing of seasons in the tradition of their Celtic forebears. Secondly, I have from time to time entertained the thought that magic and the magical world is somehow inscrutably connected with Christianity. While I have not fully developed this yet, I based it initailly on the sign above Ollivander's shop: "Makers of Fine Wands since 382 B.C." Aha! I thought. So wizards use the Christian calendar. Ollivander obviously took the trouble to update his sign to comply with the dating scheme, which wasn't introduced until about 527 A.D., when it was devised by Dinonysius Exiguus. As we all know, Dionysiostrove to make year 1 of his calendar correspond with the year of Jesus Christ's birth, on the principle that His Nativity was the pivotal event in human history. I think it reasonable to believe that the Wizarding World is also of this opinion. Consider this. The Wizarding World predates the Christian World by at least a good 2,500 years; Ron Weasley spoke of the magic used by ancient Egyptian wizards on the pyramids, and the Pyramids of Cheops at Giza, the oldest of the "Great Pyramids", to which I assume Ron referred, was built around 2560 BC. One could reasonably assume that Egyptian wizardry, such as that mentioned in the Bible, reached as far back as the Egyptian empire, which arrived on the scene about 4500 BC. And if wizards go back that far, whay not even further, to the ancient Sumerian and Mesopotamian cultures of the sixth millennium BC? I think I remember a wizard or two in the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, the oldest known written story. Who is to say that Wizardry doesn't find its roots in Central Africa with the emergence of the first sapient Humans? This in mind, we must take into account Wizards' general attitude toward Muggles; that is, one of haughty disdain toward an inferior community. The best of them find us and our ways a curiosity or as a source of occassional novelty in the form of the periodic lemon drop or electrical outlet collection. But nothing we do is really of any great use to wizards. Why, then, do they use our calendar? Especially Ollivander, whose business out dates it by about 909 years? Why doesn't he reckon the opening of his shop in some wizard calendar or in a Muggle calendar that was in use at the time? He could just as easily have billed his shop as opening in 371 A.U.C., the Roman calendar that counted years from the foundation of Rome (Anno Urbis Conditae). He could have reckoned it as the second year of the 98th Greek Olympiad, a calendar which was used extensively in the Western World at the time. I'll tell you why. Wizards recognize Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. That's why they use the Christian Calendar, which places Christ at its center. They might even have used it before the Muggle abott Dionysius Exiguus devised it, since Wizards are usually more in tune with the world around them. They might even have a more accurate version. There is a discrepancy of as much as ten years between year 1 of Exiguus' calendar and Christ's actual year of birth. Maybe the Wizards, being more accurate, are ahead or behind us slightly in their years, which would explain why it's sometimes difficult to determine exactly what year it is in the HP books. It's just a thought. She might have just said 382 B.C. to avoid confusion. Maybe magic is a heretofore undiscovered piece of the Jungian concept of the Collective Unconcious. Vince P.S. There is no such word as "deific". --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Leon Adato" wrote: > reincineier said: > ************ > Something that has been bothering me for a while: what is everyone's > take on religion in the HP wizarding world? > ************* > > It seems pretty clear that JKR has steered clear of ALL religion - no > mention of J.C., Vishnu, Hashem, Allah or any other deific entity. Yes, > Christmas and Easter are mentioned as holidays (meaning "vacations" in US > terminology) but that could just be the less-PC way of saying "winter > holiday" and "spring break". > > My understanding from friends who grew up in the UK is that this is very > common. Christmass is seen by many to be a non-religious holiday (strange as > it may sound). > > Aside from those two vacation-events, there is no other mention of a > religious occurance - nothing Jewish, Hindu (despite having Indian > students), Muslim, Buddhist, or otherwise. > > While this originally bothered me, someone pointed out that this would steal > focus from the *conflict*. It is harder to make a metaphorical comparison > when the real elements are also present. To say that another way, it's hard > to use the treatment of half-giants (and the half-giant hiding his status) > as an allegory of (for example) Jewish persecution if you clearly have > Jewish people (persecuted or not) in the story. People tend to miss the > point then. > > So my assumption is that JKR is only showing "religion" if it is a social > event, not a truly theological one. > > $.02 debit cheerfully recorded. > > Leon Adato > -------------- > I have suffered from being misunderstood, > but I would have suffered a hell of a lot more if I had been understood. > -Clarence Darrow, lawyer and author (1857-1938) From hsowaw2001 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jun 28 17:06:06 2002 From: hsowaw2001 at yahoo.co.uk (hsowaw2001) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 17:06:06 -0000 Subject: Humour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40533 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "nplyon" wrote: > > > What are everyone's favourite funny parts in HP? > > > > > > Rosie The part that ALWAYS cracks me up, everytime I read it, is in CoS, and it's sung by Peeves the Poltergeist: "Oh, Potter! You Rotter! What have you done? You're killing off students, you think it's good fun!" *Is laughing now!* Peeves is such a humourous character, he just has fun all the time. Like at the Deathday party, when he starts pelting Myrtle with Peanuts! Poor Myrtle! --Jasmine From rvotaw at i-55.com Fri Jun 28 17:30:32 2002 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (Richelle Votaw) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:30:32 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Grandpa Riddle (was Re: Grandpa Voldemort) References: <20020628141504.46239.qmail@web11206.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002401c21ec9$820dd6c0$80a2cdd1@istu757> No: HPFGUIDX 40534 > Ronale7 writes: > > >I believe Voldemort is Harry's paternal > grandfather.<< > And Richelle replied: > > I still disagree .... I am still convinced...that > Voldemort/Riddle > is Harry's maternal grandfather. < And Wendy writes: >Tom Riddle's father abandoned his son (and his wife?) >because of the magic in their blood. Has anyone >considered that maybe Tom Sr. went on to have another >child, most likely a daughter? This daughter could, >in turn, be EITHER Lily's mother or James' mother. >Voldemort, in turn, could have gone and murdered his >half-sister and brother-in-law, much in the same way >that he killed his own father and grandparents. Say, that's good! I've never thought of that one. There's not much known of course about James' parents, however . . . >If this connection were on Lily's side of the family, >then that would explain Petunia's extreme fear and >distrust of magic a little further. In Petunia's >mind, her own parents were murdered by an evil and >power-thirsty wizard, therefore all wizards are evil >and power-thirsty. And it would also explain why Harry has apparently never seen pictures of his own mother or grandparents. Petunia's extreme fear woudl probably extend to removing all traces of her connection with those murdered by Riddle/Voldemort. Very possible. >version). If I'm not mistaken on my definitions here, >if James Potter were actually Voldemort's nephew, then >Harry *would* be an *ancestor* of Slytherin, but not a >descendant. I'm a bit confused on the two words myself, but if Slytherin does have something to do with the green eyes of Lily and Harry it could still have come through in the genes. I think. I'm not much of a whiz at genetics! >Please correct me or refer me to older messages if >this has already been debated at length :) I haven't been around very long, just a couple of weeks, but thanks for sharing this theory! I think I might like it better than mine! Richelle From editor at texas.net Fri Jun 28 18:16:31 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 13:16:31 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Humour References: <8.28716b5f.2a4ddbff@aol.com> Message-ID: <006a01c21ecf$ef5fed20$b27763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40535 Talia Dawn said > My favorite is in CoS, when Ron and Harry first arrive at Hogwarts after > getting out of the car and Ron and Harry are discussing why Snape isn't at > the table. (CoS p.77 US): > "Maybe he's ill!" said Ron hopefully. > "Maybe he's left," said Harry, "because he missed out on the Defense Against > the Dark Arts job again!" > "Or he might have been sacked," said Ron enthustically, "I mean, everyone > hates him -" > "Or maybe," said a very cold voice right behind them, "he's waiting to hear > why you two didn't arrive on the school train." > > That is the funniest thing ever! (Maybe more so because I do that all the > time....I say something about someone and they're right behind me!) I think > I blushed for them when I first read it. It's probably supposed to be, but I didn't find this funny. The timing is perfect, of course, but I wouldn't call it funny. Probably because I empathize too much with Snape. I don't for a minute think he would or did allow himself to care what these kids were saying--but *I* would, in his place. It's that same "shared embarrassment" thing that makes me leave the room during TV shows so I miss the awful embarrassing thing that's been set up. There's a name for it, I don't remember what it is. --Amanda ------------------------- one nation *under God* From editor at texas.net Fri Jun 28 18:29:09 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 13:29:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Cruciatus and Imperius (Some TBAY), Dark Magic Power Boosts References: Message-ID: <007301c21ed1$b257eca0$b27763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40536 Abigail said > A truly evil thought occurred to me while reading this post Dear, dear. We're corrupting you. *snicker* > That's never made any sense to me. I know that Harry is both modest and > friends with Hermione, which could make anyone undervalue their magical > abilities, but he must have noticed by now that he's no magical slouch. This made perfect sense to me. I was a very, very good student, the kind who made As without any real effort, I did calligraphy and illumination, I wrote poetry (some of it was decent, I hope), I was friends with the teachers, I could carry on intelligent conversation, etc., etc. And I would have been the first one to tell you--no, to *insist*--there was nothing special about me. It's called poor self-image, and I still suffer from it, and I find nothing at all unusual in the fact that Harry has not yet internalized a recognition of his skills. Also, bear in mind that the existence of these skills is fairly recent--only a few years. I can't blame him if he isn't quite ready, down there where the self-image percolates and bubbles, to rely too heavily on things that he is still just learning about. And he doesn't have much else to rely on. What the intellect knows about oneself, and what the heart believes about oneself, are two different animals; they bear no relation to one another and often have never met. > I like the thought that Harry's magical strenght derives from evil, and that it will > have to be returned in order for good to triumph. This thought doesn't gel with the rest of the series, to me (at least, not so far). JKR is nothing if not a master of showing grey. Snape is the most obvious example, but very few things in JKR's world are absolutes; it is one of the aspects of these books that appeals to me most. She is managing to present a complex and confusing world to young readers in a way that they can accept it. Thus, such a conclusion--taking Harry from a "grey" state back to a black and white--seems unlikely. If Harry lives, and if part of him stems from Voldemort, I don't see the struggle being to divorce or eradicate it, so much as to understand, assimilate, and accept it. To paraphrase Dumbledore--it will be his choice (how he handles the truth), rather than a focus on what he is made of (the parts of good and evil). If that made sense. --Amanda ----------------------------- one nation *under God* From crana at ntlworld.com Fri Jun 28 18:28:40 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 19:28:40 +0100 Subject: Hostage Harry Message-ID: <006801c21ed1$f0b53200$b83168d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40537 Elkins wrote: "Voldemort and his thirty some-odd Death Eaters all appear, right outside of the hedge maze. Preferably with Harry Potter's corpse, just for psychological effect. But, but, but...but they wouldn't really be appearing in the immediate vicinity of any convenient hostages, would they?" Oh oh oh... you're right this theory has more holes in it than a very cheap imported cauldron.. but... re-read what you just said and think. If they didn't zap Harry before appearing through the Portkey...who would they have as a very convenient hostage? ------------- Cindy said: "If it were me and I already assumed that the wizarding world were diverse, I would merely shrug at the change in Dean Thomas' race (I say "change" assuming, of course, that he wasn't always intended to be black). I fail to see the reason for the irritation people express over a decision to make a character of a minority race in this instance, which leads me to worry that something deeper may be at work." OK, I am beginning to regret I brought this whole issue up, as it seems that automatically makes me a racist. To be honest, it really doesn't bother me that much if he is black, white, Chinese, or whatever. My question was just the blatant insertation of his race into the section where it hadn't been when JKR wrote it, for a specific audience. What I am trying to ask doesn't (unless it's *really* subconscious) stem from racial prejudice, if anything, it's the opposite. Living in the society I do, with people from all sorts of different places, I assume that, in a book like the HP ones set in a similar society, there will be all kinds of people there too. I picture the characters as being a real mix, but at the same time, I don't sit there and think "Ooh, so and so must be white, so and so must be black" unless it really matters to the story. Obviously, with some of them, you are told from the descriptions or names.I think it's great to have an inclusive book, it's just that when you read that this or that character is just "black"...it seems to assume that everyone else is white. I have yet to read a book where it says "So-and-so, a white boy" or whatever and I don't like the way this kind of insertation implies that, unless we are specifically told otherwise, we should assume the characters are white. we are told their race and very little else, that is (to me) reinforcing stereotypes - oh, he's black, he must look like _______ . To me, that is *far* more offensive. For example, if I was just told that Parvati Patil was "Asian", I wouldn't learn much about her, even though it seems she is from e.g. her name. Her physical description (eg long plait, bangles) doesn't spell out what race she is as it's not really important, although it doesn't contradict what her name tells us, but also reinforces her image as a bit of a girly girl. Telling us Dean Thomas is Black adds nothing to our understanding of his character, so why bother inserting it? Do you see what I mean? This is a little hard to explain. I hope I haven't offended anyone here. Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk Fri Jun 28 18:34:53 2002 From: catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk (Catherine Coleman) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 19:34:53 +0100 Subject: ADMIN: No Off Topic posting on this list. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40538 Hi all, Greetings from Hexquarters! Just a quick reminder that we do not allow OT posts on this list. Therefore any responses to the "What does Harry Potter do for you?" thread should not be posted here. OT-Chatter is the place for all off topic posts, and can be found at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter Alternatively, you may want to contact Sabrina personally. Thanks for your co-operation! Catherine The Magical Moderator Team From newton_artemis at yahoo.com Fri Jun 28 18:21:11 2002 From: newton_artemis at yahoo.com (newton_artemis) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 18:21:11 -0000 Subject: Humour Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40539 My favorite line of the series is where Prof. McGonagall is addressing Harry in a very matter-of-fact tone shortly after he had learned from Prof. Trelawney that he would soon die: "You look in excellent health to me, Potter, so you will excuse me if I don't let you off homework today. I assure you that if you die, you need not hand it in." Classic! Newt (who, yes, simply MUST get back to writing my next edition of "Magical Beasts and Where to Find Them." While I was doing research, I found this lovely site, and I must say the lot of you are far more entertaining than reading on flobberworms any day.) From dilectio_indomitus at yahoo.co.uk Fri Jun 28 19:47:21 2002 From: dilectio_indomitus at yahoo.co.uk (dilectio_indomitus) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 19:47:21 -0000 Subject: How much does Snape know? was Wormtail's Name In the Confession (WAS: Spying Game...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40540 Darrin: > > No, we're not. Harry has never been the narrator of the books. It is > a third-person omniscient narrator. > I disagree. With the exception of a few slips in book one (esp. at the first quiddich match, where the third person describes the match from Ron's and Hermione's point of view), the entire series is written from from Harry's point of view. Yes it is third person, but definitely not all-knowing. The third person narrates what Harry sees, and makes observations consistent with what Harry knows and has seen. As for this discussion, I am with the people that don't think Snape knew much at all about the ending of PoA. Yes he heard some of the conversation at the shrieking shack but when he heard it he didn't believe it, and I see no reason to believe that he was filled in on the truth afterwards. Dumbledore, as we have seen on countless occasions, keeps his cards very close to his chest. From cureluv88 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 28 20:00:09 2002 From: cureluv88 at hotmail.com (lizbot1981) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 20:00:09 -0000 Subject: Grandpa Riddle (was Re: Grandpa Voldemort) In-Reply-To: <002401c21ec9$820dd6c0$80a2cdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40541 Wendy writes: > > >Tom Riddle's father abandoned his son (and his wife?) > >because of the magic in their blood. Has anyone > >considered that maybe Tom Sr. went on to have another > >child, most likely a daughter? This daughter could, > >in turn, be EITHER Lily's mother or James' mother. > >Voldemort, in turn, could have gone and murdered his > >half-sister and brother-in-law, much in the same way > >that he killed his own father and grandparents. > > >If this connection were on Lily's side of the family, > >then that would explain Petunia's extreme fear and > >distrust of magic a little further. In Petunia's > >mind, her own parents were murdered by an evil and > >power-thirsty wizard, therefore all wizards are evil > >and power-thirsty. > I like this theory a lot. The only problem I can think of is one of time, I think. OK, Tom Riddle Sr. abandons Voldemort's mother, goes off and has another kid (a grandparent of Harry's) but then what? Because he's living at home again with his parents when Voldemort comes back and kills them all, and it's just him and his parents, no daughter/son or wife. So, hmm.. Even if Tom Riddle Sr. had had another kid, and then left that wife, too, Voldemort still would have had to hold off on killing his half-sister/brother. Voldemort was a teenager when he killed his father and grandparents, his half-sibling would be younger. Yet this person has to go on to give birth to Lily or James. So Voldemort would have had to have had a reason to hold off on killing them. Not knowing about them, perhaps, or something else? These are just my thoughts on the theory. Lizbot From crana at ntlworld.com Fri Jun 28 22:01:20 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 23:01:20 +0100 Subject: Hooch - British holidays - Neo!Harry - Ancestor/Descendant - Idishe Mame Message-ID: <007d01c21eef$5620c380$2e3468d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40542 Belinda wrote: "Hooch becomes Bibine, which is intersting because Bibine in French is a bad quality alcoholic drink! (Unless of course Hooch means the same in English and, being Australian, I don't know the slang, forgive me if this is well-known as I haven't researched it)." Yep, hooch is alcohol, and yeh, it isn't exactly champagne :). It was also the brand name of an alcopop (I dont know if this is a British word? like soda with alcohol in it) that was controversial because many people claimed it used cartoons to get kids to buy it. ---------- Jenny wrote: "I don't think JKR sat down and thought "Okay, my Wizarding World is all Christian", but I'm willing to bet that she is, and most of the people she knows are, too. If JKR was Jewish, she would have most likely changed the wording of these holidays to something more generic, like Winter Holidays or Spring Break. I just don't think she thought about it one way or the other." Um.. to me living in the UK it is no sign of religion at all - I think this one's a cultural thing. The winter holidays in Britain *are* the Christmas holidays. Even if you don't celebrate Christmas, they are still the Christmas holidays. The spring ones *are* the Easter holidays... Winter and Spring break sounds really really weird in a British context. Nearly as weird as "math". -------- Richelle wrote: "When Neo goes to the the Oracle, she tells him he's not The One. Well he is, but she told him what he needed to hear. She made him think he wasn't really anything special, yet that is how he became so powerful. Perhaps Harry is like this. He needs to think he's just an average wizard so that he won't get full of himself, and eventually may become the greatest wizard of all time (or however you want to think about it)." Ah... echoes of Dumbledore in PS/SS, saying that Harry is better kept from fame, not growing up knowing he is special.. hmmm! ----- Wendy said: "If I'm not mistaken on my definitions here, if James Potter were actually Voldemort's nephew, then Harry *would* be an *ancestor* of Slytherin, but not a descendant." An ancestor is someone higher up the family tree (mother, grandfather), a descendant is someone further down (son, grand-daughter). Unless there is time travel, Harry would have to be pretty old to be higher up the Slytherin family tree than Salazar himself - he'd have to be over a thousand years old. Interesting comments though - have I misinterpreted you? (Sorry) ------ Nuri said: "I love each and every inspired Molly Weasley moments. Adding to the religion-in-HP debate, she looks a total "idishe mame" to me." I feel bad for asking, but hey. Idishe mame? ------ Rosie ------------- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Fri Jun 28 22:18:10 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 22:18:10 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Peter Doesn't Get The Girl In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40543 (Apologies to Elkins in advance. Elkins is really quite nice, much nicer even than Lily Potter.) It is a lovely night out on Awphtawppik Lagoon. The moon is shining, as a kayak glides across the waters. Careful observation produces some curious facts about the kayak. It is covered with dents and scrapes, and although it has room for four paddlers is only occupied by two, languidly paddling around under the moon. "I really needed this break, Avery," says one of the paddlers. "After my friends memory-charmed me and then abandoned me, and we got mixed up with Gilderoy Lockhart." The paddler called Avery shakes his head. "No, you're right. Not Gilderoy Lockhart. George Lucas. Same difference. But anyway, I want to say, Ave, that you've always been there for me. Unlike some people I could name." Avery smiles appreciatively. "But as nice as this vacation's been, I just got an urgent call from Elkins. She seemed a little surprised I was alive when she got me through our campfire. Said something about being glad I got away from Pettigrew and that she wasn't a Gryffindor. But, apparently, she's got something big on Pettigrew." Avery begins to shake. "Look, Ave, don't be coward. I mean, we sycophants have to stick together. At least, that's what Elkins told me once. Not that she's stuck to me." Avery raises his eyebrows. "Unresolved issues between us. She's been threatening to revoke my SYCOPHANT membership. All because of You-Know-Who." Avery's big brown eyes grow larger. "No, not THAT You-Know-Who. Cr.. Well, never mind. Let's go and see Elkins." * * * * * * * * * * * * * Eileen and Avery bring their kayak gently towards the waterfront entrance of St. Mungo's. On entering Theory Bay, the two had been greeted with the news that George had requested Elkins to come for group therapy with Cindy. "About time," thinks Eileen. "Do you have a referral?" the nurse asks. "No. I can prove I'm a member of Fourth Man, FEATHERBOAS, SYCOPHANTS, and Subversive!Neville. Will that get me checked in?" asks Eileen. The nurse flinches and waves Eileen towards the room where George is helping Cindy and Elkins to sort things through. "YOU CALLED ME DEMENTED!" comes a shriek from behind the door that sounds like Cindy's. "Just because I said that Cruciatis makes you *stronger*." Avery turns to run, but Eileen takes him by the arm, and pulls him into the room. "Ah, Eileen, Avery," George raises his gorgeous eyes. "Long time no see. In fact..." George doesn't finish the sentence. The last time Eileen and George met, he was fanning Tabouli while Tabouli screamed orders at her crew to bring back Eileen in chains for attempted LOLLIPOPS desertion. "Am I demented?" asks Cindy earnestly. "Elkins says I'm demented. She says Pip will think I'm demented too. What do you think?" "Demented is good," says Eileen calmly. "If one wants to understand someone walk in their shoes a mile. If one wants to understand the wizarding world, be demented." A look of disaproval comes into George's beautiful eyes. "However, I came here to talk to Elkins." Cindy bursts into tears. "NOW IT'S YOU TOO!" she screams and throws herself sobbing into George's shapely arms. For the first time in his life, George looks a little awkward, doing a passable imitation of Ron Weasley in PoA. "Hello Eileen," says Elkins a little stiffly. "Hello." They stare at each other a little. "Having fun with CRAB CUSTARD recently?" says Elkins, a cold glint in her eye. Eileen blushes. "It's not my fault," begins Eileen. "It's just..." "It's just that Crouch Sr. is so dead sexy? Eileen, how could you? And you maligned our poor Barty Jr. a charter member, may I remind you, of SYCOPHANTS." "Elkins, SYCOPHANTS were made to worship Tough people," says Eileen in an impassioned, and curiously trembling voice. "Aren't you glad it wasn't Voldemort or Cindy?" (Cindy begins to wail.) "Forgive me, Elkins, forgive me!" Eileen throws herself on the floor. "You like Percy, don't you? Percy worshiped Crouch. I've always told you I'm like Percy." "Get up, Eileen," says 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 is already paying some of her debst already, aren't you, Cindy?" Elkins looks at Cindy, who continues to sob. "You returned to me, Eileen, not out of loyalty, but out of boredom. You deserve this pain, Eileen. You know that, don't you?" "Yes, Elkins," moans Eileen, "please, Elkins, please..." "Yet you have helped me in the past. You have even stood up for Subversive!Neville," says Elikns watching Eileen sob on the ground. "Worthless and traitorous as you are, you helped me... and Elkins rewards her helpers..." Elkins raises her wand and whirls it through the air. A streak of what looked like molten silver hangs shining in the wand's wake. Momentarily shapeless, it writhes and then forms itself into a gleaming canon, bright as moonlight, which soars downward, and lands right at Eileen's feet. Eileen's sobbing stops abruptly. Her breathing harsh and ragged, she raises her head and stares in disbelief at the silver canon. "Elkins," she whispers. "Master... it is beautiful... thank you... thank you!" She scrambles froward on her knees and kisses the hem of Elkins' robes. "May your loyalty never waver again, Eileen," says Elkins. "No, Elkins... never, Elkins." >If we rework TEWW EWWW To Be TREWWW so that it is *Peter,* rather >than Snape, who was offered Lily as his prize, then everything begins >to fit together. Eileen begins to smile. >It explains why Voldemort hesitated for only that >split second before cheerfully slaughtering Lily. After all, if he'd >really promised her to some *competent* Death Eater, one with some >genuinely useful *skills,* then one might think that he would have >thought twice before deciding not to follow through on his promise. Eileen nods. 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? >Small wonder that Voldemort does not trust Peter's loyalty! And >small wonder that Peter himself seems so mistrustful of Voldemort's > likelihood of keeping his promises this time around. From Peter's >perspective, you see, Voldemort has a really lousy track record when >it comes to this kind of thing. Ah, this goes a long way to explaining their relationship. I mean, what evidence has Peter to be so darn suspicious of Voldemort's promises? We all know that the devil is the prince of lies, but other than that? (;-) 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. >In fact, right after Voldemort's rebirth, when maimed Pettigrew gasps >out his reminder of some "promise" to his unimpressed master, is he >really referring to a current event at all? We have all naturally >assumed that Voldemort must have promised Pettigrew some reward in >exchange for the sacrifice of his hand. But the words can be read >differently. It could be that what Peter was really trying to say >there was: "Don't hold my past disloyalty against me. You promised >me Lily, and you reneged. Surely you can understand why I might have >been a bit faithless, under the circumstances? So come on, be a >sport, won't you? *I* sure have. Don't make me bleed to death here >in this creepy graveyard, okay?" Yes, yes they can. And it's worse than that. 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. A perfect time to remind Voldemort. "You promised.." "So, you killed Lily and now you're going to kill me?" 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. >But the graveyard is hardly the *only* >place that Peter has exhibited such reluctance to look Harry in the >eyes, is it? In fact, he shows that same reluctance even before he's >accumulated any burdensome life debt at all. He never once faces >Harry in the Shrieking Shack until the very end, when he has already >checked everyone else in the room off on his Supplication List. And >even then he is reluctant. He hesitates, he "turned his head >slowly." He is far more willing to clasp Harry's knees or to grovel >at his feet than he is to look directly into those familiar emerald >green eyes... Eileen nods again. >He knows that if he even once speaks her name, his voice will betray >him. >As indeed, his words very nearly do. Consider this line, for example: >"Harry, James wouldn't have wanted me killed...James would have >understood, Harry..." >He would? James would have *understood?* Understood what, for >heaven's sake? Cowardice? Self-interest? Betrayal? >No. James would not have understood. That is because James was >*heroic.* In fact, James was so tediously and irritatingly and >*boringly* heroic that not one reader has ever confessed to having a >crush on him. James would never have understood such motivations. >But one thing that even he, one thing that even the Ever So >Infuriatingly Virtuous James Potter might have understood? >Even *he* might have understood how it must feel to be haunted, >obsessed, tormented, *consumed* by the fires of passion for the >lovely young Lily. >After all, he married her. A very good canon, Elkins. It's given me a thought. 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? I'm not sure that his evident liking for Weasleys and Ron is relevant, but if you say so.... But then Elkins launches into a mutation of "Peter gets the Girl!" 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. >"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." "Cindy, my slippery friend," says Elkins lazily. "Why don't you believe my version of events?" >Oh, yeah. Bertha just *ruined* Peter's strategy there, giving the >game away that he actually *was* capable of finding female >companionship when he wanted it. Undercutting all of >that "Hopelessly Devoted Admirer Who Will NEVER Get A Date With >Anyone Else" stuff that he'd been feeding to sympathetic soft-touch >"Lily-Was-Nice" Lily. Giving the show away that dear little "Oh, I >can talk to *you* about this, Peter, because you're not *like* all >the other boys, Peter" Pettigrew really was "just like all the other >boys" after all. After finding out that Peter had been snogging >Florence behind the greenhouses, was Lily ever going to give way to >the temptation to let him have just one sympathy...uh, hug? "You know, Cindy, Elkins," says Eileen. "They're both really great stories. And one of them is true. But it strikes me that Elkins is well more sordid, and Cindy's more romantic. And well, Peter's sordid. I'm sorry, Cindy. I'm with Elkins." >As [Elkins]As she disentangles her hair from one of the thorns, she hears >newcomer User Google, musing out loud: >"Will Wormtail Pull A Gollum?" >Elkins coughs and wipes the back of her hand across her mouth. > "A Gollum?" she repeats to herself. "A *Gollum?*" >She shakes her head. >"Nah," she says. "Way too obvious." SPOILERS for the second last chapter of the LOTR. * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * ********** ********* ******** ******** ********* "Wormtongue!" called Frodo. "You need not follow him. I know of no evil you have done to me. You can have rest and food here for a while, until you are stronger and can go back to your own ways." Wormtongue halted and looked back at him, half prepared to stay. Saruman turned. "No evil?" he cackled. "Oh no! Even when he sneaks out at night it is only to look at the stars. But did I hear someone ask where poor Lotho is hiding? You know, don't you, Worm? Will you tell them?" Wormtongue cowered down and whimpered: "No, no!" "Then I will," said Saruman. "Worm killed your Chief, poor little fellow, your nice little Boss. Didn't you Worm? Stabbed him in his sleep, I believe. Buried him, I hope; though Worm has been very hungry lately. No, Worm is not really nice. You had better leave him to me." A look of wild hatred came into Wormtongue's red eyes. "You told me to; you made me do it," he hissed. Saruman laughed. "You do what Sharkey says, always, don't you, Worm? Well, now he says: follow!" He kicked Wormtongue in the face as he grovelled, and turned and made off. But at that something snapped: suddenly Wormtongue rose up, drawing a hidden knife, and then with a snarl like a dog he sprang on Saruman's back, jerked his head back, cut his throat, and with a yell ran off down the lane. Before Frodo could recover or speak a word, three hobbit-bows twanged and Wormtongue fell dead. * * * * * * * * * * Eileen always happy to light a candle beside Elkins's From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Fri Jun 28 22:29:58 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 15:29:58 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Triwizard Portkey In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13863043414.20020628152958@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40544 You guys are all making some good points, but I have one simple problem with the whole theory, unrelated to any of the "holes" -- Namely, it seems so much more in Voldy's interest that as few people as possible believe he's back, as is presently the case. The Ministry doesn't believe Dumbledore, and am I the only one who thinks the upcoming "discussion" (another ominous "little chat"!) between Fudge and Dumbledore will end with the latter getting sacked, if not sent to Azkaban? And then if Lucius Malfoy is his successor... A DE running Hogwarts!! Voldy would be in clover. So I stick with my theory that the Cup was a Portkey to the front of the maze anyway (besides, how else could they be sure which champion touched the Cup first?), and Crouch just inserted a "detour". -- Dave From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Fri Jun 28 22:38:36 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 22:38:36 -0000 Subject: French Names (Padfoot) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40545 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lupinesque" wrote: > Alley wrote: > > > I never knew that actual names were translated too. I find it > >interesting because we often have to search for meaning within > >words that may be striclty in English or have derivitives from other > >languages, or other (e.g. mythical) implications. To translate words > >that aren't necessarily crystal clear to begin with seems odd. > 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. I've talked about this before. I have to disagree. Names mean a lot. But what would you feel like if you opened Dostoyevsky, or Tolstoy, or Solzhenitsyn to discover that the translator had decided to make hidden meanings more clear by giving them all English names? No, that sort of stuff belongs in footnotes. I am firmly opposed to changing names, because while hidden meaning is preserved, something more important is lost: the English atmosphere, the realization that these are English characters, not French ones, living in England, not France. To give them French names is, I think, as dumb as it would be to introduce American slang into the American version. Eileen From m.bockermann at t-online.de Fri Jun 28 22:14:56 2002 From: m.bockermann at t-online.de (m.bockermann at t-online.de) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 00:14:56 +0200 Subject: Grandpa Voldemort References: <1025267961.846.86176.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <018901c21efb$7858b820$e22c56d9@i7p8l9> No: HPFGUIDX 40546 Hi everybody! Rosie wrote: >I could see it as more likely that it was some witch, maybe besotted by the young Riddle, but who he just used >& threw away. Then the young Voldemort!Baby got handed over to foster parents.. who also adopted... Petunia! >Thereby making it very nicely so that Petunia and her horrible son AREN'T related to Harry, which I would like >very much. Perhaps part of the reason she resents the "burden" of looking after him is that she always >suspected that she and Lily weren't true sisters, and therefore not only is she having to look after this little brat >dumped on her, but he isn't *really* even her nephew. And Richelle added: I think it is possible that something like this could be the case. Aunt Petunia certainly doesn't seem to look very much like Lily, sure doesn't act like I'd expect her to! And it would be very satisfying for the readers to learn that Harry isn't really Petunia's nephew! Not to mention it takes a pretty hard person or a person who doubts the relation to treat a blood relative the way she treated Harry. Who knows, maybe she knew she and Lily were both adopted and didn't want it revealed for some reason or another. She is one to keep a secret. A revelation such as that would make for a light moment in what will probably otherwise be a dark book with Voldemort returning and all. I'm with you on the maternal Grandpa theory. And I agree that there is a secret about Lily that Petunia doesn't want anybody to know about... besides the fact that Lily was a witch. I also want to add that we have already seen a bit of foreshadowing for it. I'm sorry, I can't quote directly since I don't have the books with me. I must fall back on memory. Anyway: Rember the scene in PoA where Aunt Marge comments on Harry's parents. She is really pushing it *very* far here. She compares Lily to a literal bitch. She claims that something like Harry can only come from bad blood. And she tries to reassure Aunt Petunia that she can't be blamed - there is a black sheep in every family. Aunt Petunia sits silently and doesn't comment, she is squirms but she doesn't dare to say anything. Aunt Petunia! When was she ever at a loss for words? Now: go and read the scene with the maternal Grandpa theory in mind. If Lily was Voldemort's daughter, she and Petunia might be only half-sisters or not sisters at all, making Lily indeed some kind of "black sheep". Wether Lily was adopted or the product of rape, adultry, secretly or accidentally exchanged infants... I believe that somehow she didn't fit into the family and Petunia knew or guessed it. If the theory is true, then certainly Aunt Marge is closer to the truth than she knows and that makes Petunia uncomfortable. Small wonder. Petunia talks about Lily reluctantly at best. To say that she is the product of some kind of family scandal is more than she can manage, even in the presence of another family member like Marge. Another point I'd like to make is that at the end of CoS Dumbledore tells Harry because Voldemort, whom he owes the scar to, spoke Parsel. He also explains about the scar and the question of choice. The wording is so that the reader *can* interpret that Voldemort "rubbed" some of his abilities off onto Harry. But it *doesn't* contradict the interpretation that he speaks Parsel because Voldemort, his grandfather through Lily, spoke Parsel, meaning that the ability was inherited genetically. Ethanol From m.bockermann at t-online.de Fri Jun 28 23:06:52 2002 From: m.bockermann at t-online.de (m.bockermann at t-online.de) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 01:06:52 +0200 Subject: Perversion In the Graveyard (WAS: Sexuality in HP) References: <1025133862.2071.57076.m10@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <018a01c21efb$795c1e60$e22c56d9@i7p8l9> No: HPFGUIDX 40547 Hi everyone! (Warning: discussion of sensitive topic! Please skip if this kind of discussion bothers you.) A lot has been said about sexuality, homoerotism and/or perversion in HP. There are some who say there are decidedly sexual undertones in HP, others deny this interpretation of the text. One of the arguements against erotic undertones (might they be hetero- or homosexual) is that Voldemort is so evil and power-greedy that can't have a sexuality of any kind. But this arguement only holds if you try to connect Voldemort with ordinary sexuality. I agree in so far that Voldemort doesn't have an ordinary, healthy sexuality but an abnormal one. When I speak about abnormal sexuality, I mean that of perverts and/or rapist. Please note, that I do *not* include homosexuality in there. I know, there are people who see that differently but this is not what I want to discuss. What I want to talk about is the kind of sexuality that drives a person (*not* necessarily a man) to rape another person of the other or the same gender. In a rape, the need the rapist seeks to satisfy is *not* the libido of a normal, healthy adult. Between two consenting adults, intimacy satisfies the sexual drive of the libido. But a rapist doesn't mainly seek physical or emotional satisfaction. He also or simply needs to satisfy a lust for power, for domination. In somebody with an abnormal sexuality, the sexuality and the lust for power become intermingled. I guess that is why the Graveyard scene creates such controversy. One thing is sure: JKR has guts. She breaches new territory with her tale that most author's of adult books avoid the sexuality of their villain, let alone author's of children's book. Those authors follow the easy path: they separate their villain from their sexuality, leaving only the desire for power. They are bad, because they do bad things and they laugh a meniac laughter. But sexual identity is important in a normal person. In a literary villain, the exclusion of their abnormal sexuality robs them of their humanity. Think about Vader for example. He is more mechanical then human. Certainly there is no sexuality left in him, wether normal or not. We see him do evil things and that is the reason why he is a villain. I agree with Elkins and the others who read undertones in the graveyard scene. JKR has promised in interviews that she would picture the darkness. And she does. She doesn't dehuminize Voldemort by denying him a sexuality of his own. He has a kind of sexuality, but as villain he has an abnormal one. He doesn't derive pleasure and satisfaction by physical intimacy but by degrading Harry and asserting his power over him. In this regard, it is very much like a rape. The fact that Voldemort takes blood from Harry is disturbing in many ways. Blood is an important symbol: it stands for life for example. But blood is also associated with sexuality, via the menstruation and the blood that flows when a virgin looses her innocence. Both menstrual blood and virginal blood have been associated in the past with magic, with illness, with healing powers. The exact interpretation differs from culture to culture and from time to time. Not only Harry's helplessness but the blood makes this scene a kind of metaphorical rape. I believe that this is also satisfying to Voldemort. It doesn't satisfy the sexual desires of a normal, healthy adult however but the abnormal one of a villain. Voldemort is not only evil, because he acts evil. He is also evil, because he is *really* twisted and JKR shows this to us. Somebody (I'm sorry I don't remember who) asked wether we were actually *seeing* any erotic undertones the first time we read the graveyard scene. My answer is, that I was thinking: Wow. I can't believe she is doing this! I am *not* somebody who is easily scared by horror movies. Despite the splatter, I get bored. I guess that is because the villain in the end, is mostly just another "bad boy". He challenges the hero, sometimes wounds him, but he rarely hurts him emotionally. But he is just an evil doer. But Voldemort is truely evil. As Elkins said, he is so here because he breaks so many crucial human taboos: about religion, family and the treatment of the dead. And I think he is so, because unlike other villains he has a sexuality, an abnormal one that fits his evil mind. Ethanol From katgirl at lava.net Sat Jun 29 00:50:29 2002 From: katgirl at lava.net (booklovinggirl) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 00:50:29 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Lily Snape: Splitting off of LOLLIPOPS. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40548 First of all, let me say that I am fully aware ducking Yellow Flags does not work. Which is why I'm going to be unconcious by the time I am finished writing this theory. Second of all, let me say that I never was truly aboard LOLLIPOPS. But I will now be drifting dangerously close, and then heading for the other end of TBAY. Third of all, let me disclaim that this theory has little canon behind it. And that I have commited the Original Sin of the group; I have proposed a whole new spell to make this work. Though, I suppose this theory can go without it. Hmmmm. Lily Snape Potter. Loving mother, beloved wife. Wonderful sibling to Severus Snape. Yes, my friends. Lily and Severus. Twins. Or brother and sister, in any case. But that's not all. Oh no no. Lily has no memory of being a Snape. She Truly Believes that she always was an Evans. Or, for the last few years of her life, a Potter. So what happened here? Modified Memory Charm, that's what I say. The Snapes, I imagine, take being a pureblooded Slytherin family very, very, seriously. We couldn't have Gryffindors, could we? But we do. Because by some freak accident, there ARE Gryffindors. But, of course, there ARE ways of dealing with them. Such as twisting around the Memory Charm and making it affect everyone who knows a certain person. Oh yes. I like it. I like it a lot. If you would rather stick with the Canonical Memory Charm, you can always say the Snapes found out in advance, Memory Charmed Lily and Lily alone, and just happened to be a family who kept to themselves. Could happen. But in any event, somebody still knows. Somebody like...Severus? Imagine how traumatized this makes him. Watching his beloved sibling's terrified expression as someone advances on her with a wand. If you want to be especially cruel to Severus, say that he unknowingly or unwillingly participated. In any event, I'd be a Mean Ugly Schnook too. Think of it. He didn't like the Marauders and hated them even more when he noticed that Lily and James had a romance going. I imagine he was rather protective of her, especially after he wasn't able to protect her earlier in life. And imagine how he feels knowing that Lily and James are dead, while he's been steeling himself all these years to tell her that they are related. As for Harry, well, just one look at his eyes, and he's reminded of everything that could have been. Angst Ridden Snape. Now, I know what's going to be said. Lily looks nothing like Snape. Well, for one thing, she's a Gryffindor in a mostly-Slytherin family. And I'll remind you that she looks nothing like Petunia, either. And now my memory flashes back to a Scholastic chat with the great JKR. Someone asked how Muggles can have Wizard Children. JKR responded that "It's the same as two black-haired people producing a redheaded child." Coincidence? Maybe. Probably. But still, I can't resist that particular piece of evidence. Now. Come at me with your yellow flags! ^_^ -Katherine From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Sat Jun 29 01:12:28 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 01:12:28 -0000 Subject: Voldemort AND Religion WAS Re: Religion in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40549 Religion in HP - the topic that is - lost its appeal for me a long time ago. You can only debate the significance of the Easter and Christmas holidays for so long. But something new has occured to me after reading all these marvellous posts on the graveyard scene. First of all, they've really identified why that scene made me feel so icky, in a way I couldn't quite put my finger on. I didn't sit there reading the scene and going, "Oh this is so sexually perverted" by any means, but now that I look, the elements are there, and it goes a long way in explaining the revulsion I felt. As well, I think that the perversion of religion was there as well. It's a very sacriligeous scene, isn't it? But what does that say about religion in the wizarding world? As noted, Voldemort twists at least three of the sacraments. There's his rebirth in "baptism." The consumption of blood is a twisted version of "communion," and he holds his own mockery of "confession." Well, the point about this type of black magic is that it is based not off a disbelief in the sacraments, but a belief in them, in the belief that they are powerful things, magical in their own, and that one attempts to take their power to oneself. The history of black magic (or reputed black magic) is not something I know much about, but I have always thought this to be the case. Everything from the Black Mass to the old Reciting the Lord's Prayer backwards. So, while it's anyone's guess what Harry's personal beliefs are, can we side Voldemort up as religious in his own twisted way? And not only Voldemort. Eileen, deeply disturbed From datalaur at yahoo.com Sat Jun 29 00:36:53 2002 From: datalaur at yahoo.com (datalaur) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 00:36:53 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40550 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > For some reason, then, when Dean Thomas' *race* is changed, some > people become highly irritated. What, exactly, is the difference > between what was done with Dean (setting aside inadvertent FLINT-y > matters such as the number of students remaining to be sorted) and > my hypothetical with Hanah Abbott [that she is in a wheelchair] or my hypothetical involving > Dean's height? [that he is described as tall] There is NO difference. I find all 3 changes equally offensive if not generated/approved by the author. Evidently some editor person decided that their version of the story was better than JKR's. I am equally annoyed by the removal of 'vault 711' information. It's the non-authorial alteration of the work that bothers me; whether the 'improvement' is actually an improvement or not is irrelevant (and subjective). I'd go so far to say that even so-called 'obvious errors' should not be changed without author verification. I don't want someone else deciding that they know better than the author. Granted, most authors have to give up total control of their work and accept that editors can pretty much do whatever they please. As a reader, I accept their contractual right to edit. But I don't have to like it. And I like it even less when the motivation appears to have some social basis (no matter that I actually approve of the net result in Dean's case, though the insertion was clumsily done). This is one reason I stick with fanfic and don't bother trying to write pro. While I love betas and am often convinced to make changes in my work, no one can demand that I do so. laur From golden_faile at yahoo.com Sat Jun 29 02:36:53 2002 From: golden_faile at yahoo.com (golden faile) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 19:36:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Humour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020629023653.33749.qmail@web14604.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40551 --- nuriaobradors wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "nplyon" > wrote: > > > > What are everyone's favourite funny parts in > HP? > > > > > > > > Rosie > > So many!! > > I love each and every inspired Molly Weasley > moments. I was trying to think of a funny moment, then I read this post and it came to me! The scene where Ron sees his dress robes for the first time is hilarious! When Molly tells Ron to go starkers and then tells Harry to be sure and get a picture, because she could use a good laugh. Now that, my friends, is comedy! Laila __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From brian042 at hotmail.com Fri Jun 28 23:54:21 2002 From: brian042 at hotmail.com (bkb042) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 23:54:21 -0000 Subject: How about this one? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40552 Snape is Lily's brother. It has been noticed that "Severus Snape" is an anagram of "Perseus Evans". We also have precedent for siblings to be split apart during Sorting (Padma & Parvati Patil). We have evidence that Petunia is a liar with regard to how the Potters died. She is also bitter and spiteful towards Harry in particular in much the same way that Filch is towards the student body of Hogwarts in general. That said, how about this for a backstoryline: Snape intercedes for Lily with Voldemort. He could care less about James (not many brothers-in-law like the spouses their sisters choose), and Harry threatens the existance (albeit in the future) of Voldemort since Harry would be honor bound to avenge the death of his father. Voldemort basically tells Snape "O.K. As long as you keep Sis off my back.". Pettigrew and Voldemort arrive in Godric's Hollow to off James and Harry, but Lily is being too maternally obstructionistic with phase II. Voldemort has no recourse but to AK her in order to get to the troublesome diaper-jockey. It is at this point that his metaphorical gun metephorically blows up in his face. Upon hearing the news of his sister's demise, Snape changes sides. Harry is all he has left of his wizarding family (since he changed his name and cut himself off from his muggle parents and sister), and feels bound to protect him (the quidditch match), but can't help hating him because of James. BTW, I know why Fluffy has an attitude: He's got six ears an can only scratch behind two of them! That'd be enough to drive anyone nuts! bkb042 From kdmjg at magiclink.com Sat Jun 29 02:53:41 2002 From: kdmjg at magiclink.com (expellarimus) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 02:53:41 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and Religion Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40553 I know religion is a universal theme in literature. So is mythology, so is magic. Why do any of them have to connected. So what if JKR talks about Christmas and Easter. Christmas and Easter are universally celebrated in most countries, not always religiously. Many people who celebrate these holidays really have no idea what is really behind them. Post Offices take the holiday off in the U.S. In fact nearly everything comes to a screeching halt. It seems perfectly natural to mention these things in the books. Also as I was reading some of the postings I feel to say that the scene in a churchyard or graveyard and the rebirth of Voldermort are being carried a little too far. I don't believe JKR had any specific purpose in using a graveyard except that it is supposed to scary. For me it really adds to the flavor of the story. It is also fitting that those who come out of the wand do so in a graveyard and that Voldermort, who is so nearly dead (in a way0, should be found there. As for the "rebirth", similar themes are found in myth as well. In the books a pheonix is reborn from the ashes of it's former self. I think in the case of Voldermort it is necessary for him to be reborn as a new threat, a bigger or perhaps more fearsome threat. Expellarimus From ajl at hanson.net Sat Jun 29 02:58:20 2002 From: ajl at hanson.net (dembeldei) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 02:58:20 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Lily Snape: Splitting off of LOLLIPOPS. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40554 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "booklovinggirl" wrote: > Lily Snape Potter. Loving mother, beloved wife. Forgive me if anyone else mentioned this (I didn't see it in a search) but, someone noted that the anagram of Severus Snape is Perseus Evans Interesting, since Voldemort/Tom's names were anagrams... From mlacats at aol.com Sat Jun 29 03:28:23 2002 From: mlacats at aol.com (mlacats at aol.com) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 23:28:23 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lethal Harry Message-ID: <107.13fab458.2a4e8357@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40555 In a message dated 06/19/2002 2:49:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ntg85 at prodigy.net writes: > I think it wasn't so much that Harry was using specific spells as that > he was making what he wanted happen. He wanted to free the snake; he > wanted to get Tia Marge to shut up; he wanted to get away from the > bullies. (Didn't he also break a glass once?) Anyway, Harry didn't > even know those things were possible, let alone what spell to use. I > think it was, as Hagrid said, "making things happen" (and from the > fact that Hagrid says it as if it happens to everyone indicates it may > not be an isolated phenomenon... Remember, Neville bounced). > > I always thought that Harry was more posturing than anything when he > threatened Sirius. It's the same thing as people who are fighting > going, "I'm gonna kill you!" even though they have no intention of > doing so. > Can I jump in here? this is Harriet. Sirius says "Are you going to kill me, Harry?" And I wondered....Just how is Harry going to kill Sirius? He can't do AK.... Maybe, if he points his wand at Sirius' heart and says, "Stupefy" or ...yuch..."Accio heart..?" Or is Sirius being sarcastic, knowing that Harry can't really kill him...? (I apologize for responding to this post over a week later, but I work full time and don't get to check my posts during the week.. Thanks for your patience.) Harriet [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mlacats at aol.com Sat Jun 29 04:01:56 2002 From: mlacats at aol.com (mlacats at aol.com) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 00:01:56 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's blood/Lily Potter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40556 In a message dated 06/20/2002 10:20:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com writes: > > And most of all, why did Voldemort hesitate to kill Lily Potter? Can't > quite fathom that he has a soft spot for women. There's a missing link > here > somewhere. > > > > Richelle > > > Somebody please point out the hesitation bit to me. I thought he just > killed her then tried to kill Harry. > > Unforvibably short post but maybe I have read the book wrong ( or the wrong > edition) > > Felicia > I always thought that the reason why Voldy didn't want to kill Lily at first was because he was only interested in killing Gryffindor heirs, which were James and Harry, Lily not being related by blood to the Potters.... (I follow the heir to Gryffindor theory.) Harriet [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Zarleycat at aol.com Sat Jun 29 11:20:54 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 11:20:54 -0000 Subject: How about this one? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40557 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bkb042" wrote: > Snape is Lily's brother. It has been noticed that "Severus Snape" > is an anagram of "Perseus Evans". We also have precedent for > siblings to be split apart during Sorting (Padma & Parvati Patil). > We have evidence that Petunia is a liar with regard to how the > Potters died. She is also bitter and spiteful towards Harry in > particular in much the same way that Filch is towards the student > body of Hogwarts in general. I've got problems with this theory. We know that Petunia hated the idea of a having a witch in the family. Wouldn't she also hate the idea of having a brother who was also magic? She never mentions him. If Severus was her brother, why wouldn't either Petunia or Vernon ever say anything to Harry about how unfair it is that they have to raise him, rather than his Uncle Severus, especially since they so resent his presence in their house? For that matter, why would Snape be Snape and not Evans? Would there be a reason for him to not carry the family name as a child? Unless there is a believable reason that Severus was taken from the family, or given up by the family at such an early time that neither Lily nor Petunia realized that they had a brother. I don't know - that seems like a stretch to me. And, is it not stated somewhere in one of the books, that Harry has no other living relatives besides the Dursleys, or am I making that up? Marianne From catlady at wicca.net Sat Jun 29 11:44:38 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 11:44:38 -0000 Subject: Founders/Werewolf in F Forest/Firebolt/# of Students/Abomination/HP Birthday Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40558 Squeak!Pip wrote: << there was not just one native language in 10th Century Britain [Even today English is *not* the native language of the whole of the British Isles - though Welsh and Gaelic speakers do generally have English as their second language]. Languages included Anglo-Saxon, Old Danish (Northern England), Gaelic and the Welsh variant of Gaelic (now Welsh).>> Darrin Burnett wrote: << Godric Gryffindor might be British, but Salazar Slytherin strikes me as Latin (maybe Moorish?) and Helga Hufflepuff and Rowena Ravenclaw need not necessarily be British. (Perhaps Hufflepuff is an English-izing of a good Germanic name.) >> Ooh! An excuse to share my theory! But first I will be a nit-picking pain in the ass... the Welsh (Cymric) language is not a form of Gaelic (it IS a form of Celtic). Gaelic is from the Goidelic branch of the Celtic language family and Welsh is from the Brythonic branch. The two branches diverged a very long time ago and have something to do with the letters P and Q. Back in the time of the Founders, the term "British" could only apply to Brythonic speakers ("The subdivision of the Insular Celtic languages that includes Welsh, Breton, and Cornish", says dictionary.com), not to Gaels or Saxons. (This very patchwork language in which I am writing descended from Saxon.) In MY theory, the founders come from the different ethnic groups that were on the island of Britain at that time (for the PC-ness that has been so recently criticised on list). Rowena is the Saxon (because 'Rowena' is a Saxon name, okay? You can look it up on www.behindthename.com :"Latinized form of a Germanic name meaning "fame and joy" from hrod "fame" and wynn "joy". According to the 12th-century chronicler Geoffrey of Monmouth, this was the name of a daughter of the Saxon chief Hengist") and Helga is the Dane (it's a Scandinavian name), from the Danelaw, which is sort of around Yorkshire. I say Godric Gryffindor was the Welshman -- I say his orginal name was Gryffydd Glndwr, but as a very young man, he left home in search of adventure and joined up with a group of mercenaries who were mostly Saxons and just as unable to pronounce his Welsh name as I am, so they mangled it into something they *could* pronounce: Godric Gryffindor. This shows what a generally good-natured wizard he was, allowing them to call him a Saxon name (Godric). Gryffindor *does* sound like Norman for 'golden gryphon' -- I was told that the golden gryphon is just as much a Welsh national symbol as the red gryphon (which is on their flag), so that fits. And I found this site that says that there were Norman mercenaries in Britain before the Conquest, so it *can* be Norman. (That site www.regia.org says "Regia Anglorum attempts to recreate a cross section of English life around the turn of the first millennium. Our actual self imposed brief is AD950 - 1066, although our events may sometimes be set a few decades either side of these dates. It was a time of great flux and change and, as all our public shows are 'datelined', we can demonstrate the changing fashions of the times. It was a time when Britain was host to many peoples - Anglo-Saxons, Anglo-Danes, Norse, Cymry, Viking raiders and even a number of Norman mercenaries.") The other ethnic group(s) that must be represented is the one(s) left out of that last sentence in the quote: the Scots and Picts, who occupied that other major country on the island, the one now called Scotland. The Picts were there first and the Scots arrived from Ireland as settlers starting in the sixth century. In the ninth century they were joined together as the Kingdom of the Scots and Picts (Kenneth MacAlpin 843 CE). Salazar *might* have been a Pict. Apparently not much is known about their origin, so maybe they were related to the Basques. See post #36995 by elirtai for possible Basque origin of the name Salazar. My other idea is that he was a Byzantine originally named Lazar-us but changed it to Sa-lazar to sound more salacious. Debbie wrote: << I had thought it was just a rumor invented by the students to explain why the forest is forbidden. Draco is the first to mention it, in PS/SS ch. 15 ("We can't go in there at night--there's all sorts of things in there--werewolves, I've heard.") And in CoS ch. 15, Ron raises the same concern ("Er--aren't there--aren't there supposed to be werewolves in the forest?"), but Harry responds, "There are good things in there too. . ." with the "too" suggesting that he also believes there are werewolves in the forest. It doesn't make sense that there would actually be werewolves in the forest. >> Someone suggested that the rumor of werewolves in the Forbidden Forest was started by sightings of Moony and his 'near-misses' back in the 1970s! The rumor-believers, and Harry, might not understand that werewolves are only a danger -- only exist -- at Full Moon. That brilliant student Tom Riddle could make a wisecrack about Hagrid raising werewolf cubs under his bed (JKR,in an interview, explained that as "It was a lie") suggests that very few people in the wizarding world read all the way to the W's in FABULOUS BEASTS to reach the article on werewolves and learn that they are perfectly human the rest of each month. Aesha wrote: << In my opinion, the moment that BartyJr. 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? >> This is a forbidden "I agree" post. Alexander wrote: << Reply may seem strange, but it's logical: Firebolt is NOT a sporting broom, it is a racing broom. But then... why did Irish team choose that stupid broom to use on Quidditch World Cup? >> IIRC the Firebolt was *not* a stupid choice for Quidditch, as it is the most manuverable broomstick on the market. Manuverable: fastest response to rider's controls, narrowest turning radius, that kind of thing. I can see how a very, very fast racing broom would need fast responses. Ridden at a slower speed, that manuverability lets the Seeker plunge straight down to the Snitch and turn horizontal just skimming the top of the grass (while catching the Snitch on the ground), where a less manuverable broom would have had to turn horizontal sooner or else crash into the ground. Dave Haber Phoenix wrote: << for a total of 280 total students at Hogwarts, not a thousand as Gretchen mentioned in a thread about breakfast owls last week. >> The novels depict approximately 280 students at Hogwarts, but JKR said in an interview that there are around 1000 students at Hogwarts. There is endless argument between the 'small Hogwarts' and 'large Hogwarts' believers, but someone supplied the BEST answer during one of our debates on what JKR means by Arithmancy: "4 (Houses) times 7 (years) times 10 (students) = 1000. That Arithmancy is powerful magic!" I say there have to be around 1000 Hogwarts-age children to maintain a wizarding population in Britain of around 20,000, which I estimate is the *absolute minimum* that can support, even with magic, the amount of wizarding economy that we see. If there are other wizarding schools in Britain, the other 720 students can be at the other schools. But JKR said, in another interview, that Hogwarts is the only wizarding school in the UK. I have invented a complicated rationalization for how all this can be true! If the other two or three schools are officially considered to be branch campuses of Hogwarts, with their Headmasters (or would they only have Deputy Headmasters?) reporting to Dumbledore about very major things, then official Hogwarts (the Hogwarts coalition) would be the only wizarding school and it would have 1000 students. But really they are three or four different schools. The 'original campus' founded by the Founders continues to be called Hogwarts. The other campuses would be named something like the Hengist of Woodcroft Campus of Hogswarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, and be called something like Woodcroft School. Elkins wrote: << I also think that people tend to react so strongly to this sequence because it comes across as perverse, as an offense, a *Wrongness.* It is depicted as Abomination. >> You mentioned that one of the things that Voldemort violated in that scene is Religion, specifically Christian religion. As horrified reader, I didn't consciously notice the sex symbolism or family symbolism, but I was consciously quite shocked at the Blasphemy. I'm not even a Christian, but the Risen Voldemort surrounded by his Apostles, promising eternal life to those who have unshakeable faith in him, drinking blood.... ugh! Ronale7 wrote: << It's unlikely she accidentally picked this birthday for Harry. >> JKR made Harry's birthday be July 31 because that is her own birthday, not because it is Lammas / Lughnasadh / August Eve. I wish the kids *did* have important birthdays. She said Hermione's birthday is September 19. In some years, 9/19 is Fall Equinox, does anyone know whether 1979 or 1980 was one of those years? She said Ron's birthday is March 1. I have terrible difficulty believing that -- he so much doesn't seem like a Pisces to me! Ron'd be a good Taurus; he could be born on May 1 / May Day / Beltane / Roodmas. From elfundeb at aol.com Sat Jun 29 14:58:27 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 10:58:27 EDT Subject: The Triwizard Portkey Message-ID: <33.293be323.2a4f2513@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40559 On Voldemort's alleged plan to attack Hogwarts, Elkins quoted Amanda: > I believe, therefore, that the whole plan was something along these > lines: > (a) get Harry through the tournament as a winner > (b) get Harry to the graveyard for Voldemort's reanimation > (c) use the portkey to return to the grounds of Hogwarts > (d) make major offensive action against the gathered, unsuspecting > might of the free world. > (e) sit back and mop up. > It broke down at (b). That it did. But if it hadn't broken down at (b), wouldn't it have broken down at (c)? [snip Elkins' vision of 30 DE's all landing in a jumble on the Quidditch pitch] But even if they did manage that, then there's the problem of (d). Voldemort and his thirty some-odd Death Eaters all appear, right outside of the hedge maze. Preferably with Harry Potter's corpse, just for psychological effect. [snip] But, but, but...but they wouldn't really be appearing in the immediate vicinity of any convenient hostages, would they? [snip remainder of Elkins' excellent objections] The attack on Hogwarts just doesn't make sense to me, but I have a different reason than those already given. A successful attack involving even a small segment of the DE's would have required a substantial amount of advance planning - Voldemort and his band of DE's couldn't just descend on Hogwarts via the Portkey and start blasting curses at random. Yet they wouldn't have had time to plan an attack at the graveyard - sooner or later the crowd assembled at Hogwarts was going to realize something was amiss and disperse (I actually think they must have already realized there was a problem since Harry was in the graveyard quite awhile). So the DE's didn't have time to plan such a mission on the spot. But notwithstanding Pip's Spying Game suggestion that Voldemort intended to use the Riddle fireplace as a communication device, there's no suggestion in the graveyard that the DEs could possibly have prepared anything in advance. In fact, they don't act like they were prepared ever to see Voldemort again. They "approached slowly, cautiously, as if they could hardly believe their eyes." These cowards haven't been planning any attack. I don't think Voldemort even risked contacting them; the loyalty of the ones who weren't in Azkaban was too questionable. In GoF ch. 1, Wormtail finds Voldemort's baby form repulsive, and Voldemort even tells Wormtail, "Your devotion is nothing more than cowardice. You would not be here if you had anywhere else to go." If he was worried about Wormtail leaving him, he certainly wasn't going to enlist the support of former supporters who had become used to the post-Voldemort life. And had Voldemort been in contact with the DE's, would he have asked Harry (rhetorically) while waiting for them to arrive, "How many will be brave enough to return when they feel it?" If he'd been talking to them I think he'd have a really good idea of who was going to show up. 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. I suppose somebody could say that Crouch was lying, because Harry is not dead, and we saw Voldemort screamed in fury at his escape, so that must have been part of the plan. But I agree with Pip that even killing Harry was a secondary objective - because I'm not sure Voldemort was convinced that he could kill him. No, I can't believe there was any plan for the DE's to attack Hogwarts; Voldemort doesn't trust his remaining followers enough, and he needs to use a few more blasts of Cruciatus to ensure their loyalty before he can enlist them in anything like this. Pippin, however, has a suggestion that would leave the DE's out of it: An assasination attempt on Dumbledore would be too risky. It's clear from Voldemort's words in the graveyard that he's still afraid of him and so are the other DE's. 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. 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. 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? Besides, if that was the plan, wouldn't the appearance of Harry's AK'd corpse be, by itself, a most effective terrorist statement? An extra blast at this time just doesn't seem necessary. 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? 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. No, I think he's smart enough to stay in the graveyard frightening his followers into submission. This would be a good reason to have one of Alora's personalized Portkeys. But Cindy's already addressed that: Well, if the portkey were rigged to only transport Harry, this would be a nice trick. But it clearly wasn't, as it transported both Harry and Cedric to the graveyard. No, I think I'm back where Elkins, David, and Dave H. are: So I stick with my theory that the Cup was a Portkey to the front of the maze anyway (besides, how else could they be sure which champion touched the Cup first?), and Crouch just inserted a "detour". 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? But the detour in the portkey makes so much sense I'm willing to write this off as a FLINT. As Dave H. says, how else would anyone know who won the tournament? Or maybe Crouch/Moody was supposed to program the Portkey when he took it to the maze, but just programmed in an extra location. This would leave only one more problem: How to get Harry's corpse back to Hogwarts, if it's too dangerous for Voldemort or another DE to take it there. Judy pointed out: We never see portkeys transporting inanimate objects; it appears they only work when a live (magical?) human touches them. So, I think someone would have had to *bring* Harry's body back, as Harry did with Cedric's body. And that would be quite risky for whatever Death Eater did it. Yes, I agree that Portkeys should only work on people. But I do want this to work, because Dead! Harry at the edge of the maze has a lot more Bang than Missing Harry. So maybe some kind of body warmth is required to trigger the portkey, in which case mightn't a portkey still work on a warm body? If so, then all you need is to get Harry's dead body to touch the Portkey (Arthur Weasley says in the Portkey chapter that the contact of a single finger is sufficient) in order to send him back. How about a well-executed Banishing Charm on Harry's body sending it to the portkey? I think that would work. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ksnidget at aol.com Sat Jun 29 11:10:35 2002 From: ksnidget at aol.com (ksnidget at aol.com) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 07:10:35 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] How about this one? Message-ID: <12e.138fbeb9.2a4eefab@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40560 bkb042 writes: >Upon hearing >the news of his sister's demise, Snape changes sides. Harry is all >he has left of his wizarding family (since he changed his name and >cut himself off from his muggle parents and sister), and feels bound >to protect him (the quidditch match), but can't help hating him >because of James. However, according to Dumbledore Snape changed sides and turned spy BEFORE Voldemort's downfall. >From the Pensieve Scene of Karkaroff's testimony "Dumbledore had gotten to his feet. 'I have given evidence already on this matter,' he said calmly. 'Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. However, he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall and turned spy for us, at great personal risk. He is now no more a Death Eater than I am.' " Although you could potentially posit that when Snape found out that James and Lily were targeted that loyalty to his sister was more than his loyalty to Voldemort and that is what prompted him to switch sides prior to the downfall. Ksnidget. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fakeplastikcheese at yahoo.co.uk Sat Jun 29 12:08:50 2002 From: fakeplastikcheese at yahoo.co.uk (fakeplastikcheese) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 12:08:50 -0000 Subject: Humour In-Reply-To: <20020629023653.33749.qmail@web14604.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40561 > > > > > What are everyone's favourite funny parts in > > HP? > > > > > > > > > > Rosie As well as many of the moments people have already mentioned, I just love the scene in PoA when the DADA class take on the boggart. Snape in a lacy dress with a vulture on his hat and a big red handbag just cracks me up. :-D ~Buttercup From TaliaDawn3 at aol.com Sat Jun 29 15:57:26 2002 From: TaliaDawn3 at aol.com (TaliaDawn3 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 11:57:26 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How about this one? Message-ID: <41.1f5a4df2.2a4f32e6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40562 In a message dated 6/29/02 7:21:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Zarleycat at aol.com writes: > I've got problems with this theory. We know that Petunia hated the > idea of a having a witch in the family. Wouldn't she also hate the > idea of having a brother who was also magic? She never mentions > him. If Severus was her brother, why wouldn't either Petunia or > Vernon ever say anything to Harry about how unfair it is that they > have to raise him, rather than his Uncle Severus, especially since > they so resent his presence in their house? My theory about his is that Severus was adopted by another family. I think Lily knew about Severus, but Petunia didn't. Perhaps Snape changed his name so he could differentiate (please forgive me if that's spelled wrong) himself from his family of Muggles. Lily's family thought that only Severus (Perseus) was magic (perhaps he showed signs of it as a young child) and sent him away to live with a wizard family. He then changed his name so he wouldn't be thought of as a Muggle. Then, when they all went to school, Lily knew that Snape was her brother, but he was so hated that she didn't want to tell anyone. And Snape, feeling some kind of attachment to the sister he never knew, agrees to not tell anyone. This could also explain some of his hatred for James. ~*~*~Talia Dawn~*~*~ (Hoping that this post makes sense to someone besides herself!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Sat Jun 29 17:24:26 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 13:24:26 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How much does Snape know? Message-ID: <24.27a751d7.2a4f474a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40563 Darrin, > It is entirely possible that Snape overheard that Sirius is an > Animagus, but did not hear what he could turn into. In all the > confusion in the hospital scene of GoF, he might not have > said: "Black Dog = Sirius" and indeed been surprised. > > So, Snape being shocked upon seeing Sirius again in GoF is entirely > This seems to be one of those topics that comes up on a cyclical basis :-) We know exactly how much of the conversation Snape heard, because JKR is careful to emphasise the moment when, cloaked and invisible, he comes into the room. He *does* hear that the Marauders are animagi, but not their forms. However, something struck me today. Had I been Sirius and feeling about Snape as he did, I'm sure that in replaying events afterwards, I would have thought, 'Oh ****! Does that slime-ball knows I'm an animagus? Now where had Remus got up to when he came in? Yes, dammit he does.' Instead, when the trio question the wisdom of his staying in the cave near Hogsmede, he categorically states that they and Dumbledore are the only ones in the vicinity who know his secret. This despite the fact that he's been actively contemplating why Dumbledore hired Snape and therefore thinking about him. Which leaves me feeling very unclear about what we are supposed to think that Snape does understand. Is the clearly flagged entrance there to tell us that he *does* know Sirius is an animagus? If he does, he doesn't seem to do anything with the information and so there is no compelling plot-driven reason for him to know. And if he *does* know, and *has* been filled in by Dumbledore about Sirius at the end of POA as many speculate, then I am very surprised that he hasn't twigged that that strange black dog with Harry is Sirius. Putting two and two together as only he can. Surely his Latin/astronomy/astrology is up to that. It makes me wonder, actually, whether if in JKR's mind he hadn't known until that revelation in the hospital wing. I wonder if his invisible appearance in the Shack at that particular point has nothing to do with the necessity of his learning that Sirius was an Animagus, but is for other reasons (assessing the situation, picking the right moment to act, etc) and that the animagus information, which *is* important to other elements of the story line, just happened to be part of that same package for narrative reasons. If it wasn't specifically important where Snape was concerned, it was perhaps not necessarily incorporated into his profile, as it were. I am in complete agreement, however, that whether he knows or not, there are good reasons for Snape to be furious and horrified since he is realising that he is going to have to work with Sirius and accept him as an equal in Dumbledore's eyes. I imagine he feels like the prodigal son's elder brother at this point. It just surprises me if Sirius doesn't realise that Snape knows he's an animagus and Snape has no clue as to his form. Eloise Who would like to add as a footnote that she very much likes Catlady's theory about the founders. Oh, and as another footnote, found out the other day that at her daughter's new school, the Prep Dept used to have just two houses - named Griffin and Raven! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sat Jun 29 17:43:03 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 17:43:03 -0000 Subject: Magic Review (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40564 Magic Review (to the tune of Magic to Do, from Pippin) Hear a MIDI at http://www.broadwaymidi.com/shows/pippin.html Dedicated to Jenny of Ravenclaw THE SCENE: It's Finals Week at Hogwarts, and the TRIO, surrounded by mountains of textbooks, are pulling an all-nighter. TRIO Join us........ Head for the library Join us........ Head in book to bury Join us........ With caffiene to carry us through Doo-dle-ee-do Study....... Study through the night till We have read through every title Study........ strange and arcane knowledge pursue We've got magic review........ to get through We've got final exams to cram HERMIONE I've got timers to turn.... HARRY Charms to learn . RON Texts of hex to be discerned TRIO If we are to earn a "A." HARRY Potions.... Naming each ingredient RON Dark Arts.... Defense that's expedient HERMIONE Magic.... Creatures trained obediently TRIO Dee-dle-ee-dee HERMIONE Transfigure.... Matches into needles RON History.... Emetic the Evil HARRY Trelawney .Knowing what the tea leaves'll see TRIO We've got magic review........ to get through We've got final exams to cram I've/She's got timers to turn.... Charms to learn Texts of hex to be discerned If we are to earn a "A." - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From ODawn1965 at aol.com Sat Jun 29 17:59:21 2002 From: ODawn1965 at aol.com (odawn1965) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 17:59:21 -0000 Subject: Missing Weasley child In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40565 Grey Wolf says : "I know we've had quite a bit of discussion regarding the likelihood of this naming scheme and theory since I brought it up a few weeks ago. After reading everyone else's thoughts I've adapted what I think is likely. I think they started with the alphabet scheme as follows: Arthur, Bill, Charlie, ?David?, (Edward) Percy, Fred, George -----Death of David and/or Weasley Grandparents who were watching him w/Dark Mark over the Burrow leading to the re-examination of naming scheme. Maybe it's bad luck, so they abandon it ---- Ron, Ginny" Is there a specific reference to Percy being called Edward, or is "Percy" a nickname for "Edward" in the UK? That is a new one on me! Is there a website that explains the meaning of all the names? Also, looking for a comprehensive list of the foods named in the books. (The WW foods, "Bertie Botts EFB", etc.) ODawn1965 From divaclv at aol.com Sat Jun 29 19:25:57 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 19:25:57 -0000 Subject: Humour In-Reply-To: <000c01c21e12$d06f60c0$5d3468d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40566 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rosie" wrote: > What are everyone's favourite funny parts in HP? One of my favorites--mostly because it caught me completely off-guard- -is the part during the QWC in GoF, with the wizard in the muumuu (can't recall his name) refusing to wear pants because he "liked to feel a nice breeze around his privates." :-o Besides conjuring up an amusing yet rather disturbing mental picture, I was simply surprised that Rowling got away with it! (Given that it takes very little to p*ss off some parents anymore) ~Christi, who plays in the SCA and so knows a few guys who go about in kilts, perhaps for similar reasons... From kellybroughton at yahoo.com Sat Jun 29 20:09:44 2002 From: kellybroughton at yahoo.com (kelly broughton) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 13:09:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Religion in HP In-Reply-To: <000001c21e52$360d5470$0464a8c0@dellcpi> Message-ID: <20020629200944.96217.qmail@web21109.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40567 --- Leon Adato wrote: > reincineier said: > ************ > Something that has been bothering me for a while: > what is everyone's > take on religion in the HP wizarding world? > ************* > Keep in mind that Xmas and Easter were originally pagan traditions, and much older than Xianity, which would be a reason even nonxians would observe them. However, I must admit to being perplexed as to why Rowling would call them Xmas and Easter, as opposed to Winter Solsice and Spring Equinox. I understand she couldn't call them Yule or Eostar, as these are Wiccan(?) terms, and the Potterverse does not practice Wicca... but I do understand that quite a few ppl in the UK DO observe Yule; in fact, In GoF, the ball that the participants of the Triwizard Tournament had to attend was called the Yule Ball. So, what's up with that? -kel __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk Sat Jun 29 20:16:27 2002 From: Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk (pamscotland) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 20:16:27 -0000 Subject: Humour In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40568 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "c_voth312" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rosie" wrote: > > What are everyone's favourite funny parts in HP? > > One of my favorites--mostly because it caught me completely off- guard- > -is the part during the QWC in GoF, with the wizard in the muumuu > (can't recall his name) refusing to wear pants because he "liked to > feel a nice breeze around his privates." :-o Besides conjuring up an > amusing yet rather disturbing mental picture, I was simply surprised > that Rowling got away with it! (Given that it takes very little to > p*ss off some parents anymore) > Wearing a kilt without underwear is commonly called 'going Commando' - referring to the traditional military way of wearing kilts. (Or so I am told - in my family the men always wear the same under their kilts as they do under their trousers). Despite seeing many kilt- wearing men dancing and also marching in a blustery wind, it has only been during Highland Games competition I've ever seen a kilt blowing up to reveal whether or not the owner was wearing underwear. They always were. If the wizard were wearing a real kilt (rather than a pleated skirt made of some tartan lookalike fabric) then it will generally be too heavy to be lifted by a mere gust of wind. Absolutely no need for disturbing pictures - mental or otherwise. Cheers for now Pam From lmccabe at sonic.net Sat Jun 29 20:51:27 2002 From: lmccabe at sonic.net (Linda C. McCabe) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 13:51:27 -0700 Subject: TBAY The Biggest of Hedgehogs Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40569 The Athenian goddess looks the Captain squarely in the eyes. "Cindy, I've been recently informed that you are in therapy. I think that may be a *good thing.* You see, I understand you dislike the Keeper of the Keys and Grounds at Hogwarts. However. Comma. It just doesn't seem right that he would be Ever So Evil. There's too many holes in that theory." Athena draws the captain to a nice comfy sofa and calmly offers her a cup of nectar. "Here, drink this and it will soothe your nerves. You see, if Hagrid were ESE...then there would be no series. If Hagrid had picked up Voldemort's wand in order to save it later for his Master -- why would he have delivered baby Harry to Privet Drive? Don't you think he would have just chucked the little brat off to sea and let him drown?" "But, but...I have all these cannons..." Cindy groaned. "Yes, yes and they do appear interesting on first blush. Especially how you responded to the question of how to hide such a large Death Eater at the graveyard. Placing him behind Harry is a clever response. However, remember in the first book where Hagrid also had the Philosopher's Stone in his possession as well as Harry Potter. And he met up with Quirrell earilier that very same day. If Hagrid were ESE, then after going to Gringotts to pick up said stone - wouldn't he have later joined Quirrell at some pre-arranged site and delivered the immortality to Their Master and The Boy Who Lived?" The goddess brought a nice blanket to cover the shivering shoulders of the captain. "And there's the pesky detail of Hagrid being tricked into devulging the secret of how to get around Fluffy in exchange for a dragon's egg. Surely if Voldemort knew that Hagrid was a supporter, he could have merely asked Hagrid himself without having to resort to deceit." Athena then raises Cindy's chin so that she can look her in the eye. "I do however like the idea that Hagrid had Voldemort's wand hidden in the umbrella and that Wormtail scampered to the hut to retrieve it before going to Albania. Seeing how a spellotaped wand backfired repeatedly on Ron during the second year does not make me feel good about Hagrid having his broken wand working. It also neatly answers the age old question: What happened to Voldemort's wand? Hagrid picked it up and later Scabbers found it when he was hiding in Hagrid's hut. Then retrieved it when he was exposed as Wormtail and forced to seek refuge in The Evil Overlord. Does my fondness for that reading of canon make you feel any better?" "A little. At least my posts aren't totally ignored," the captain said cheering up. "And Captain, you are welcome in my temple anytime you need a little respite from the denizens of Theory Bay who would deign to hurl you into its churning waters," the gray eyed goddess intoned. "That type of disrespect is frowned upon. Why should anyone try to do that to me or any of the Olympians - they should remember the story of Arachne. She had the distaste to compare her talent to mine and when forced to compete with me she wove a tapestry mocking the gods and goddesses. Now she spends her day spinning and spinning webs in the Forbidden Forest as a member of Aragog's harem." The goddess gives a shrewd look at the brave but battered captain and decides maybe she is worthy of a little divine intervention. "Another instance of transfiguration of mortals who did not know how to behave involved my sister Artemis. She was bathing under the moon in a still body of water after an enjoyable hunt. When a huntsman happened upon her and did not avert his eyes after he realized what he saw. Artemis took her hand into the water and sprinkled his face with water. Where the droplets hit him antlers sprung up. Soon he was a grown stag and his own dogs were beset upon him. Woe to those who cross the gods and goddesses." Athena gives Cindy a smile, "And now Captain Cindy, I have been known to bestow favors to mere mortals in the past who have shown bravery. Since there have been those who have attacked you or your paddle, I shall invoke the power of transfiguration to your paddle. But it shall only work three times. Use it wisely and do not make me regret having given you such a power." Captain Cindy thanks Athena and picks up her newly enchanted paddle and hefts its large mass onto her shoulder. She starts whistling as she heads back to the Big Bang Destroyer as thoughts of how she could use this new power in a creative and Bangy way. Athena From lmccabe at sonic.net Sat Jun 29 21:17:35 2002 From: lmccabe at sonic.net (Linda C. McCabe) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 14:17:35 -0700 Subject: Missing Weasley Children Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40570 Grey Wolf says : "I know we've had quite a bit of discussion regarding the likelihood of this naming scheme and theory since I brought it up a few weeks ago. After reading everyone else's thoughts I've adapted what I think is likely. I think they started with the alphabet scheme as follows: Arthur, Bill, Charlie, ?David?, (Edward) Percy, Fred, George -----Death of David and/or Weasley Grandparents who were watching him w/Dark Mark over the Burrow leading to the re-examination of naming scheme. Maybe it's bad luck, so they abandon it ---- Ron, Ginny" ODAWN1965 was perplexed by this and asked: Is there a specific reference to Percy being called Edward, or is "Percy" a nickname for "Edward" in the UK? That is a new one on me! Athena: As the person who brought forward this theory known by two different acronyms as H.A.G.R.I.D. W.A.N.T.S. B.R.A.S.S. D.R.A.G.O.N.S. A.S. P.E.T.S. (Harry's All-seing Groupie Ron Is Demonstrated: Weasleys Alphabetically Naming Their Sons Brings Ron As Seventh Son, David (Really A Good Offspring) Never Survived Although Still Positionating Exactly Third Son) or W.A.N.D.S. C.R.I.S.S.-C.R.O.S.S. (Weasleys Alphabetically Named Dead Son; Consequently, Ron Is Seventh Son, Covert Recipient Of Second Sight) the Edward Percival thing is my attempt to reconcile a small little wrinkle in an alphabetic naming scheme. It's something I've noticed that some families decide that cutesy naming schemes for kids. One example is that they are all named with the same first letter, Jenny, Jeremey, James, Jill, etc. I had noticed the B, C, F, G with the names with the Bill, Charlie, Fred and George. Somewhat alphabetical. Add Arthur to the beginning and it's even more alphabetical. Some don't like this because they think Bill is short for William. However, in PoA when talking about the Grim, Ron mentioned an Uncle Bilious that died after seeing one. I think Bill was named after his uncle and is commonly called Bill rather than Bilious. (heck that would be my preference!) The gap between Charlie and Percy could be filled with a dead brother which I named David. Then I needed to make Percy into an E name. Since many, many people do not like their first names and are called by their middle names I thought this might occur here too. "My real name is Edward, but everyone calls Percy" thing. JKR has such a talent for slightly obscuring things such as Scabbers being old and missing a finger that one glosses over it. I think she wanted to do the Seventh Son legend, but was afraid of making it obvious. So rather than do a strict alphabetical name scheme with a gap for David she slightly obscured it with Percy's name. We also don't really know what Ron or Ginny's formal names are. The CTTMNBN had McGonagall say his name out loud, but in canon - his name is not called. He might have a different first name other than Ronald - possibly starting with the letter H. Maybe, but not necessary. The Weasleys might have abandoned that cutesy naming scheme after David was killed thinking it was bad luck. (And there's lots of speculation as to what Ginny is short for. Maybe Ginny is short for Iphigenia. Ugh!, but we'll never know for sure because Harry missed her sorting!) Anyway, it's more than just speculating that Ron is a Seventh Son because heck it sounds good and maybe we can squeeze in another child in the big gap between Charlie and Percy. It's trying to extract wispy clues that might be intentionally muddied by the high priestess of plot diversion. ODAWN1965 asked further: Is there a website that explains the meaning of all the names? Also, looking for a comprehensive list of the foods named in the books. (The WW foods, "Bertie Botts EFB", etc.) Athena: Check out Arabella Figg's Hogwart's Express: http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/cookarama/namemean.html She also has some nice dictionaries to check out. and you can always check the HP Lexicon http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/ Hope that helps, Athena From bard7696 at aol.com Sat Jun 29 21:50:26 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 21:50:26 -0000 Subject: Missing Weasley Children In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40571 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Linda C. McCabe" wrote: > > > > > > Grey Wolf says : "I know we've had quite a bit of discussion > regarding the likelihood > of this naming scheme and theory since I brought it up a few weeks > ago. After reading everyone else's thoughts I've adapted what I > think is likely. I think they started with the alphabet scheme as > follows: Arthur, Bill, Charlie, ?David?, (Edward) Percy, Fred, George > -----Death of David and/or Weasley Grandparents who were watching him > w/Dark Mark over the Burrow leading to the re-examination of naming > scheme. Maybe it's bad luck, so they abandon it ---- Ron, Ginny" > Darrin says: I've GOT IT SOLVED! Ok, let us take the first letters of all the names of the entire Weasley clan. Arthur, Molly, William, Charles, Percival, Frederick, George, Ronald, and Virginia. AMWCPFGRV Now, add the name "Weasley" into the mix. Rearrange those letters and you have: Clergy Vamp Few Saw. The missing Weasley child was a Squib who, shocked by the sights he witnessed growing up, devoted himself to the Muggle priesthood. Arthur and Molly, heartbroken, but wanting to do the best they could for their children, agreed never to contact him. Ginny has no memory of this brother and Ron barely remembers him. None of the others speak of him. However, a half-vampire wizard known only to the Muggle world as "Double S", in a fit of blood hunger, turned the missing Weasley child into a vampire. He was last seen in Macedonia. Arthur tries to keep tabs on him as best he can. I think this needs an acronym. DARRIN, GET A LIFE DUDE Decoding Anagram Riddle Requires Imagination, Never-ending Gumption, and Enormous Tankards of Amber Lager Imbibed. Friends and Enemies, Don't Underestimate Darrin's Eagerness. Darrin -- If JKR uses this, I want a royalty! From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com Sat Jun 29 22:14:38 2002 From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 18:14:38 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Missing Weasley Children Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40572 Athena said: >>We also don't really know what Ron or Ginny's formal names are. The CTTMNBN had McGonagall say his name out loud, but in canon - his name is not called. He might have a different first name other than Ronald - possibly starting with the letter H.<< Actually, we do know that Ron is really Ronald because in CoS chapter 3 there's a small plaque on Ron's door that says "Ronald's Room". It could be a case of it being his second name, but somehow I don't think that there would be ~two~ middle-named kids in one family. --- --Hana (who's smiling at the extent of the arguement about the alphabetical naming of Weasleys ;)) ____________________________________________________________ Win a first-class trip to New Orleans and vacation Elvis Style!. Enter NOW! http://r.lycos.com/r/sagel_mail/http://www.elvis.lycos.com/sweepstakes/ From crana at ntlworld.com Sat Jun 29 22:18:52 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 23:18:52 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Missing Weasley Children References: Message-ID: <002101c21fba$f44c1480$d33068d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40573 Athena said: "We also don't really know what Ron or Ginny's formal names are." We know what Ron's is. On his door, in CoS: "Welcome to Ronald's Room". 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... To me it's all a bit far-fetched, although it is an interesting theory! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fluxed at earthlink.net Sat Jun 29 22:46:44 2002 From: fluxed at earthlink.net (A. Vulgarweed) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 17:46:44 -0500 Subject: Religion in HP, misc. In-Reply-To: <1025349932.1036.97919.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40574 >Belinda wrote: >"Hooch becomes Bibine, which is intersting because >Bibine in French is a bad quality alcoholic drink! (Unless of course >Hooch means the same in English and, being Australian, I don't know >the slang, forgive me if this is well-known as I haven't researched >it)." 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. >Jenny wrote: > >"I don't think JKR sat down and thought "Okay, my Wizarding World is >all Christian", but I'm willing to bet that she is, and most of the >people she knows are, too. If JKR was Jewish, she would have most >likely changed the wording of these holidays to something more >generic, like Winter Holidays or Spring Break. I just don't think she >thought about it one way or the other." > >Um.. to me living in the UK it is no sign of religion at all - I think >this one's a cultural thing. The winter holidays in Britain *are* the >Christmas holidays. Even if you don't celebrate Christmas, they are still >the Christmas holidays. The spring ones *are* the Easter holidays... >Winter and Spring break sounds really really weird in a British context. >Nearly as weird as "math". I think this is a common cross-cultural difference of understanding, because the US is just a far more actively religious society. Religion is very contentious, and it's almost always universally assumed that everybody *has* one, even if it's not the majority religion. But I was raised in a militantly, politically-activist-atheist family (we got continual death threats from the local Bible-bangers everytime my dad called to complain about some Christian thing showing up at my public school, which was pretty much every week. We got used to it, learned not to take it seriously, etc), and even *we* had a Christmas tree and gave presents. It's very secular, to me at least, and to lots of other people too. I mean, what does a decorated tree have to do with Jesus? Nada. I'm neither atheist nor Christian now, and I still do it, because it's fun and pretty, out of habit, and because it marks the Winter Solstice or thereabouts. I think (please correct me if I'm wrong) it's far less contentious in the UK. People just have that time off work and school because it's been done that way for so long. >------ >Nuri said: >"I love each and every inspired Molly Weasley moments. Adding to the >religion-in-HP debate, she looks a total "idishe mame" to me." > >I feel bad for asking, but hey. Idishe mame? "Yiddishe Mama"? And now, Perversion in the Graveyard: I agree with Ethanol on that, in my first reading of that scene, I couldn't believe JKR was being so gutsy! I think every child who has ever tied up and ritually tortured a naked Barbie doll (which is an awful lot of them) was amazed that an adult could write something that so openly acknowledged this....thing. I felt the sadomasochistic subtext to be....well, not even a proper subtext at all, but utterly textual. Aboveground. Dug up like old bones (and we all *have* bones just like that, now don't we?) To argue about whether or not it is properly sexual is to split hairs of intense somatic sensation. How exactly is the arousal of sadism distinguished precisely from sexual arousal? For someone of that bent, I don't think it can be completely distinguished (and come on, speak up -- those who have been hunting, those who have become a little bit flushed with pleasure at verbally dismantling an opponent, those who have been physically pleased at getting the better of a fight, those who were *ever* bullies or bug-torturers or doll-rapists in childhood....C'mon now, reach back there: "Nothing human is alien to me - I am large, I contain multitudes"...."let he who is without sin cast the first stone"...You get the idea.) JKR is flat-out making no (ahem) bones about the fact that this is what is going on here. The flush of power that Death Eaters are rumored to get when they fully embrace the shadow I think is very real, and we're seeing it in its "highest" form here. Yes, it does evoke the Black Mass, human sacrifice, and ritualized rape, and yes it does suggest the rush of power and "glory" that is to be attained from such horrors. Bit of a turn-on, isn't it? It's a Big Bang, alright. And you want to scream, and close your eyes, and take a bath. Ethanol: One of the arguements against erotic >undertones (might they be hetero- or homosexual) is that Voldemort is so >evil and power-greedy that can't have a sexuality of any kind. Oh, but he *does.* Not for any particular _person_, but for the sensation of power in itself, the ultimate aphrodisiac. It's a form of autoeroticism, really, and any other person involved is just an object. >But this arguement only holds if you try to connect Voldemort with ordinary >sexuality. I agree in so far that Voldemort doesn't have an ordinary, >healthy sexuality but an abnormal one. When I speak about abnormal >sexuality, I mean that of perverts and/or rapist. Please note, that I do >*not* include homosexuality in there. I know, there are people who see that >differently but this is not what I want to discuss. Lord no, totally different animal. Homosexuality is about *sex* and most homosexuals are consenting adults who want consenting adults. Rape and pedophilia and _nonconsensual_ sadomasochism (which is very different from consensual BDSM) only use something that's sexual on the surface to get to the real high, which is power and domination - a partner who's any kind of equal won't provide this. The gender of the victim is often nearly irrelevant. > >But a rapist doesn't mainly seek physical or emotional satisfaction. He >also or simply needs to satisfy a lust for power, for domination. In >somebody with an abnormal sexuality, the sexuality and the lust for power >become intermingled. Yes, exactly. In someone with a high degree of sophistication and imagination in satisfying that urge, literal sexuality is only one instrument in the toolbox. Voldemort doesn't *literally* rape Harry, although he might as well have--aside from the question of whether he can or not, it might just be too unimaginative and crude and trite for him: rape is kid stuff, stupid, something even a *Muggle* can do. Voldemort is a _master_. His pleasures and desires are _refined_. >The fact that Voldemort takes blood from Harry is disturbing in many ways. >Blood is an important symbol: it stands for life for example. But blood is >also associated with sexuality, via the menstruation and the blood that >flows when a virgin looses her innocence. Both menstrual blood and virginal >blood have been associated in the past with magic, with illness, with >healing powers. The exact interpretation differs from culture to culture and >>from time to time. Yes. And I'd like to reiterate the eerie double meaning of the phrase "Blood from the enemy, forcibly taken." I agree that "forcibly taken" is evocative, and for just a second there, there's some wondering if that phrase modifies "blood" or "enemy" himself. (Grammatically it's the former, to fit the pattern of the rest of the incantation, but because the brain _can_ read it as the latter, for just a second there it does.) > >Not only Harry's helplessness but the blood makes this scene a kind of >metaphorical rape. I would say also the fact that he's bound. It may be that I'm a bit of a perv myself but sheeesh...as subtext goes this is right up there with the villain tying the swooning ingenue to the railroad tracks, ain't it? > >But Voldemort is truely evil. As Elkins said, he is so here because he >breaks so many crucial human taboos: about religion, family and the >treatment of the dead. And I think he is so, because unlike other villains >he has a sexuality, an abnormal one that fits his evil mind. Yup. And I know it was asked earlier about Christian and anti-Christian over- and undertones in the graveyard scene; I think, yup, those are there, but the taboos violated here are far older and more primal than Christianity. Reverence for the ancestors, the uncanniness of the dead and their dwelling places, the sanctity in wholeness of the physical body, the injunction not to maim oneself except perhaps ritually, the great Mysteries of death and belief in spiritual rebirth, the use of the body of the enemy to ritualize one's own power...our Cro-Magnon ancestors had most of these notions already, and pretty much _all_ religions make some reference to them (and in the absence of religion, our social customs still address them). Up to and incorporating our relatively recent horror of sexual predation on the underage (I say relatively recent 'cause in lots of cultures over the long view adult sexuality was considered to begin at puberty, which at nearly-15 I'd guess Harry's mostly past), Voldemort's managed to nail them all in one chapter. Impressive. Guaranteed to squick adults even more *more* than children who might not fully feel or understand all these taboos yet. JKR, I toast you from a human skull cup! AV, shuddering. From crana at ntlworld.com Sat Jun 29 22:37:54 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 23:37:54 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Religion in HP References: <20020629200944.96217.qmail@web21109.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004e01c21fbd$9c9844e0$d33068d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40575 Kel wrote: "Keep in mind that Xmas and Easter were originally pagan traditions, and much older than Xianity, which would be a reason even nonxians would observe them. However, I must admit to being perplexed as to why Rowling would call them Xmas and Easter, as opposed to Winter Solsice and Spring Equinox. I understand she couldn't call them Yule or Eostar, as these are Wiccan(?) terms, and the Potterverse does not practice Wicca... but I do understand that quite a few ppl in the UK DO observe Yule; in fact, In GoF, the ball that the participants of the Triwizard Tournament had to attend was called the Yule Ball. So, what's up with that?" Um, well, Yule is sort of used as interchangable with Christmas in some circumstances, like we have Yule logs (originally an actual bit of wood, now a chocolate swiss roll) and some really bad greetings cards say things like "Have a Cool Yule". Yule Balls are traditional in lots of universities and so on, same as the Spring Ball. I guess this must be hard to understand from another culture, but it'd just be really, deeply weird to call the Christmas holidays the Winter Solstice holidays, or to call the Easter holidays the Eostar or Spring Equinox holidays, even in the WW, if it was in Britain. Having grown up here, to JKR (I expect) they are just what these "vacations" are called, in the same way that an American writer would call a knitted top that kept you warm a sweater, not a jumper, jersey, wooley or pullover. Do you see what I mean? These discussions on religion are very interesting, it's just that there is definitely a cultural difference between here and the U.S. Saying "Happy Holidays!" for example, would be reaaaaalllllly reaaaallllly weird here. You might say Happy Christmas, or Happy Diwali, or whatever, but not Happy Holidays. As another Brit has pointed out, Christmas here is a really secular affair for most people. Christmas is just a time to eat lots, get drunk, watch "The Sound of Music" and have presents for most of us. Even a lot of people who are of a different religion to Christianity celebrate Christmas with cards and presents as well as their own particular festivals, because it's just the norm. To me, it would be much much more perplexing to call them the Winter Solstice or whatever. Calling the breaks the Christmas and Easter holidays does not, in Britain, indicate a religious leaning, it's just what they are called. Rosie (I am beginning to understand why some of the books had to be translated for an American market - the differences are greater than I thought. Yet I'm still frankly bemused that American kids had no idea that there were any Chinese people who lived in Britain. I can just imagine the books if they had been *completely* translated. No offence to Americans reading, those of you on here are very intelligent. I'm thinking of your average Jerry Springer guests) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ntg85 at prodigy.net Sun Jun 30 00:17:38 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 00:17:38 -0000 Subject: Britishisms, swearing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40576 sarah28962000: > Just wanted to add my two cents about the American/British versions - > I have only read the American version of all four books, but it seems > to me that some words are "translated" sometimes and not others - for > instance, Quidditch is played on a "field" most of the time, but I'm > sure I remember stumbling over the word "pitch" at least once (by the I've noticed that, too. It stumped me the first time I realized that measurements were in the american system. In my youthful naivete, I thought that the american books were "direct ports" with no changes. There aren't any really major ones, but I still wish they would've left some alone, or at least picked which ones thay translated more carefully... I think it gives the books so much more flavor with the British slang, and besides, it's a real-life example of that context-clues stuff our teachers drilled into us! 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. But in the fourth book... Well, I didn't keep count, but I know Bill said, "Noone gives a damn what I look like..." and Ron said "Damn, it's [potions] still with Slytherin" (And Hermione made no comment on that one). I believe there was one other... Don't remember it off hand though. One final question: Is "bloody" a British swear word or not? I've heard it both ways. The Random Monkey, who has *finally* finished clearing out her room and can get back to the important stuff... Crochet! From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 30 00:27:35 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 00:27:35 -0000 Subject: Religion in the Potterverse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40577 Ooh, gosh, religion in the Potterverse; now there's a thorny subject. Especially when you drag in Exodus 22:18. 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]. While I don't intend to imply that all witches and wizards are practicing Christians I'm going to look at a couple of pointers to there being at least some relationship between the WW and Christianity. Vince writes: > JKR was wise, I think in skirting the question of religion in the > HP series. If some groups object to HP because of the extensive and > central role of magic, imagine how much bigger a can of worms would > have been opened if JKR had combined it with religion. I'm not sure JKR has chosen to 'skirt' the question of religion. I think she has made a very deliberate choice to *not* discuss what, if any, branch or brand of Christianity her witches and wizards belong to; not to discuss whether they have priests or whether they dismiss the idea of 'priesthood', whether they attend Church, Chapel or Meeting House, or whether any individual person is or is not a practicing Christian. She has made references to at least some magic users being Christians in the Potterverse - the Fat Friar (Friars are a Christian religious order), who attended Hogwarts (Hufflepuff House) (PS/SS p. 87 UK paperback). Harry's owl Hedwig was named after a RL Saint who Harry found in the History of Magic . There may be Ollivander, who would be unlikely to proclaim 'Makers of Fine Wands since 382 BC' if he didn't regard himself as at least nominally Christian (at least, all the practitioners of other religions that I know in the UK would *much* rather use BCE [1]); 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). Godfather implies that Sirius himself must be a baptised Christian, since (in the Church of England, anyway) non-Christians are not allowed to be someone's godparent (godparents don't have to be terribly regular church-goers, though). Harry having a godparent also implies that Harry was himself baptised as a baby. Sirius certainly seems to take his position as Harry's godfather extremely seriously - again, this implies to me that he regards the promises he made to and for Harry as sacred (something also consistent with his being a magician, brought up in the knowledge that the power of symbolism can be very real). So Christianity is *there*, but generally not directly referred to. Partly this could be because we are seeing things very much from Harry's point of view. The Dursley's seem pretty much part of 'secular Britain' to me - somehow I rather doubt that Harry was dragged off to Church every Sunday. Hogwarts appears to have decided (quite correctly, for a modern specialist school) that it is interested in its students' magical abilities, not which religion (if any) they profess - put a secular upbringing together with a non-religious school in the modern UK and it's entirely possible to get a teenage boy with no real knowledge of, or interest in, religion, who wouldn't be likely to enquire where a particular student or teacher went to on a Sunday morning, and would probably be rather surprised to discover that it was to a religious service. However, I think there has also been a deliberate authorial decision *not* to refer to details of Christianity. I think that JKR wants to say some very particular things about the nature of good, and evil, and the hard decisions that have to be made when fighting evil. I suspect that she has decided that adding any 'sectarian' dimensions to that is just going to get in the way; and that as someone who is a member of the Church of Scotland [2], she would [IMO, IMO, IMO] probably feel uncomfortable about inventing a 'non-sectarian' religion for her WW. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I hate to discuss old Exodus Chapter 22 Verse 18 (Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live), but since it was mentioned in several posts: Dave writes: > Fact is, it's in any case a mistranslation -- The original word is > "poisoner", not witch/wizard/sorceress or whatever. 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. Having established that the original commandment does condemn 'witchcraft', the magicians in the Potterverse (getting hurriedly back on topic) would then have to decide what exactly is *witchcraft*. Because witchcraft does NOT include all magic. If you think I'm making this up, have a look at the online Catholic Encyclopedia's [3] article on Witchcraft. Its very first sentence is: It is not easy to draw a clear distinction between magic and witchcraft. So a Christian Potterverse witch or wizard would have to try and draw that clear distinction; when am I practicing 'magic'? When does it slide over into witchcraft? What does the Bible actually condemn? Generally the Bible couples its condemnation of 'witchcraft' with evil practices - with raising the spirits of the dead, with worshipping idols or devils, with possession by an evil spirit. Quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia again: ...in witchcraft, as commonly understood, there is involved the idea of a diabolical pact or at least an appeal to the intervention of the spirits of evil. In such cases this supernatural aid is usually invoked either to compass the death of some obnoxious person, or to awaken the passion of love in those who are the objects of desire, or to call up the dead, or to bring calamity or impotence upon enemies, rivals, and fancied oppressors. 'So', the wizarding Christian would go, 'have I invoked a diabolical pact? Well, not as far as I know. I was born with my powers. I know this because I've displayed them since childhood (PS/SS p. 47 'Not a wizard, eh? Never made things happen...'). That sounds more like a gift from God than a pact with the Devil. And to use magic to kill, or injure, or raise the dead sounds awfully like the Dark Arts to me. So if I use only my inborn powers, and avoid using them to do immoral things like killing people, or making them love someone against their will, then really, there is no problem with me being a Christian'. Some Muggles might think otherwise, but we all know what Muggles are like [grin]. But have you noticed who in the Potterverse does fit the definition of 'practicing witchcraft', above? Sybil Trelawny, who seems to allow herself to be possessed by an extremely dubious spirit in PoA (p.238 UK hardback). And who is a complete fraud. Gilderoy Lockhart, who suggests using love potions (Cos, UK paperback 176 - 177). Another fraud, who is quite happy to leave Ginny to die. The Death Eaters, who have made some kind of pact with Voldemort. There has been considerable discussion of whether the Graveyard Scene is some kind of Black Mass; and whether DE's receive extra powers from their allegiance to Voldemort, so I'll just end with one more quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia: witches or wizards... [performed] infernal rites which often took the shape of a parody of the Mass or the offices of the Church ? paid Divine honour to the Prince of Darkness, and in return received from him preternatural powers... Does this remind you of all the Potterverse magicians? Or does it remind you more of Voldemort and his followers? So who does Exodus 22:18 apply to? Pip (who *is* one of the 15% of the UK population who attends church regularly. Yup, the UK is a very secular society.) [1] Before Common Era; preferred by many UK non-Christians as it does not (unlike BC) imply a recognition of Jesus as Messiah/Christ. [2] Church of Scotland ref: Interview with Evan Solomon, CBC Newsworld Hot Type (21 July 2000) (http://cbc.ca/programs/sites/hottype_rowlingcomplete.html); and AOL Chat -- May 2000 [3] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15674a.htm From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sun Jun 30 00:52:03 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 00:52:03 -0000 Subject: That old Dark Magic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40578 Recent threads have inspired me to reread the graveyard chapters in GoF. And that, in turn, got me thinking about that resurrection ritual that Wormtail did to bring back Voldemort. I've wondered about it before, but don't think I ever brought it up on the list. What the heck was that spell, anyhow? Most of the discussions I've seen just call it "potion," meaning "the sort of thing Snape does," and leave it at that. But... but... there's an awful lot of foolish wandwaving involved in the process, isn't there? And ritual phrases spoken in English rather than Latin, forming full sentences rather than isolated words or phrases. It's nothing like Hogwarts magic at all, is it? We don't see Snape in the Potions lab going "Tail of newt, forcibly sliced off, you shall make people's hair turn green!" Voldemort describes it as "an old piece of Dark Magic" (p. 569, UK paperback). So is this part of the Dark Arts that get taught at Durmstrang but not Hogwarts? If it's so old, why is it done in plain modern English while plain current magic is done in Latin? And when Wormtail says, "Bone of the father, unknowingly given, you shall renew your son," is he really addressing Riddle, Sr.'s bones in the expectation that they will hear him, or is he talking to Something Else? This whole business with putting bone, flesh and blood into the cauldron seems very much like a sacrifice, but a sacrifice to what? Maybe that's what Dark Magic in the Potterverse is about? Getting power by sacrificing to or bargaining with some unpleasant supernatural forces -- as opposed to "ordinary" magic, where all power comes from within the wizard's own self. Maybe that's where the much-theorised DE power boost come from. So far, we haven't seen much of the supernatural in the Potterverse, aside from ghosts, but maybe that's going to change in future books? Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From lee.farley at ntlworld.com Sun Jun 30 01:08:59 2002 From: lee.farley at ntlworld.com (LD) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 02:08:59 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Britishisms, swearing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c21fd2$b75b91a0$41ec6bd5@quack> No: HPFGUIDX 40579 The Random Monkey wrote (typed?): >One final question: Is "bloody" a British swear word or not? I've >heard it both ways. It's one of those half swear words, sort of like 'hell' and 'bitch' are. If small children are caught using them then they get a slap (metaphorically speaking if you don't like that sort of thing) and told not to do it again, but nobody really cares if adults do it. To be honest, nobody that I know uses bloody anymore. The only people I associate with that word are those posh London types with their rols royces and bowler hats... The sort of people foriegners half-expect us to be :D -LD From ntg85 at prodigy.net Sun Jun 30 01:27:44 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (random_monkey0_0) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 01:27:44 -0000 Subject: Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40580 bluesqueak: > > 'So', the wizarding Christian would go, 'have I invoked a diabolical > pact? Well, not as far as I know. I was born with my powers. I know > this because I've displayed them since childhood (PS/SS p. 47 'Not a > wizard, eh? Never made things happen...'). That sounds more like a > gift from God than a pact with the Devil. And to use magic to kill, > or injure, or raise the dead sounds awfully like the Dark Arts to me. > So if I use only my inborn powers, and avoid using them to do immoral > things like killing people, or making them love someone against their > will, then really, there is no problem with me being a Christian'. Wahah! A chance to expound my theories! This is all based on Christian doctrine. Being a witch or wizard and being a Christian are not mutually exclusive. God creates all people, and God gives people gifts. If a person has magic powers, they have to come from God. So why would God create people who have to be destroyed? He doesn't. I think that that passage refers to people who practice things like Wicca; the Bible clearly does not support idol worship or polytheism. I also think, like Bluesqueak said, that witchcraft was believed to be powers given by Satan. People who have magic powers, and use them to the glory of God, are fine. It is debatable whether or not the Hogwart's students use their powers to the glory of God, but the fact remains that their powers are inborn, and therefore from God, according to Christian doctrine. And if that's not enough, how about the fact that it doesn't matter what religion the characters are, since they don't exist and can never really die? The Random Monkey, who can't think of a good tagline... From buffyeton at yahoo.com Sun Jun 30 03:04:14 2002 From: buffyeton at yahoo.com (EtonBuffy) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 03:04:14 -0000 Subject: Royal Family only for muggles? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40581 Do magical folk follow the royal family, or have anything like that of their own? Tamara From bard7696 at aol.com Sun Jun 30 03:40:23 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 03:40:23 -0000 Subject: Royal Family only for muggles? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40582 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "EtonBuffy" wrote: > Do magical folk follow the royal family, or have anything like that > of their own? > > Tamara Well, it doesn't appear like they have any corresponding royal family in the wizarding world. I suppose Cornelius Fudge is supposed to be the direct counterpart to the Muggle Prime Minister. Dumbledore says that he is among the few wizards who make it a point to read the Muggle newspapers, so the average person probably has no clue about the royal family, the Wimbledon standings or the football matches. Ron has apparently never heard of a football match before meeting Dean Thomas and seeing his West Ham poster. His family has no idea how to use a telephone or Muggle mail service. The worlds seem incredibly segregated. 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 before returning, though. Darrin -- I wonder where the American school is? My guess is somewhere in the deserts of New Mexico. From chetah27 at hotmail.com Sun Jun 30 05:15:23 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 05:15:23 -0000 Subject: Muumuus? Kilts? Wah? (WAS Re: Humour) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40583 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "c_voth312" wrote: > One of my favorites--mostly because it caught me completely off- guard- > -is the part during the QWC in GoF, with the wizard in the muumuu > (can't recall his name) refusing to wear pants because he "liked to > feel a nice breeze around his privates." :-o Besides conjuring up an > amusing yet rather disturbing mental picture, I was simply surprised > that Rowling got away with it! (Given that it takes very little to > p*ss off some parents anymore) > > ~Christi, who plays in the SCA and so knows a few guys who go about > in kilts, perhaps for similar reasons... And then, Pam said: >>If the wizard were wearing a real kilt (rather than a pleated skirt made of some tartan lookalike fabric) then it will generally be too heavy to be lifted by a mere gust of wind. Absolutely no need for disturbing pictures - mental or otherwise.>> Um...in my copy of GoF, the wizard was wearing a flowery night dress. Does it actually say kilt/muumuu in the copy ya'll have, or what? ~Aldrea, wondering if this is another one of those translation things. From Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 30 07:35:31 2002 From: Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk (pamscotland) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 07:35:31 -0000 Subject: Muumuus? Kilts? Wah? (WAS Re: Humour) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40584 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "aldrea279" quoted me > > >>If the wizard were wearing a real kilt (rather than a pleated skirt > made of some tartan lookalike fabric) then it will generally be too > heavy to be lifted by a mere gust of wind. Absolutely no need for > disturbing pictures - mental or otherwise.>> then wrote > Um...in my copy of GoF, the wizard was wearing a flowery night > dress. Does it actually say kilt/muumuu in the copy ya'll have, or > what? > I honestly couldn't remember and you are probably right! Not able to check right now. What I wrote about kilts is true but clearly irrelevant Many apologies Pam From Edblanning at aol.com Sun Jun 30 07:51:22 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 03:51:22 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Britishisms, swearing Message-ID: <8e.2a38d130.2a50127a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40585 The Random Monkey: > I've noticed that, too. It stumped me the first time I realized that > measurements were in the american system. I'm trying to think of some examples. Miles? Pints of water?, Half a pound of mandrake leaves? Is that the sort of thing you mean? Britain only went over to the metric system relatively recently. Yes, school children have done their measurements in centimetres and litres etc for some time, so that my children aren't very familiar with the imperial system at all. Unfortunately. But the two systems have lived side by side for ages. There are still fuddy duddies like me who naturally think in the imperial system (I am of the generation who was taught to use both at school). I still cook in imperial, for instance, although I really must get a set of metric weights as now, but really only very recently, recipes tend to be published only with metric measurements. Same with petrol. It's only in very recent years that the price of petrol has been displayed only per litre and not per gallon. The mile, fortunately, has survived, although I don't suppose it will be long until the European Union finds a reason for outlawing it! The supermarkets display the equivalent price per pound of goods, but it is *illegal* actually to sell loose goods by the pound. It's a mad world. Oh, and most importantly, beer is still sold by the pint. If the EU dare to try and make us buy it by the litre, it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. ;-) Given the facts that the WW is rather (did I say 'rather'? I mean 'extremely') old-fashioned and that the potions are contained in old books, use of the imperial system is only to be expected. Incidentally, when you say 'American measurements', that's not exactly true. If you put an American pint of water in your potion, you might find Snape making some sarcastic comments. The English pint is one of the few things that is actually slightly larger than its American equivalent! ;-) > 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. > But in the fourth book... Well, I didn't keep count, but I know Bill > said, "Noone gives a damn what I look like..." and Ron said "Damn, > it's [potions] still with Slytherin" (And Hermione made no comment on > that one). I believe there was one other... Don't remember it off hand > though. > > One final question: Is "bloody" a British swear word or not? I've > heard it both ways. I'd agree with LD, that they're sort of acceptable, or 'half' swear words. Yes, they're a little old-fashioned. But....oh dear....Look, LD, I don't wear a bowler, or drive a Rolls and I'm certainly not a posh London type (what do you mean, a Sloane?) but they're exactly the type of swear words I use. Well, I did say I was a fuddy duddy. Eloise Who actually drives a Chrysler and is irritated that in order to get meaningful information out of the little on board computer thingy she has to flick backwards and forwards between the US and European settings. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 30 08:01:11 2002 From: Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk (pamscotland) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 08:01:11 -0000 Subject: Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40586 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > Harry having a godparent also implies that Harry was himself baptised > as a baby. Sirius certainly seems to take his position as Harry's > godfather extremely seriously - again, this implies to me that he > regards the promises he made to and for Harry as sacred (something > also consistent with his being a magician, brought up in the > knowledge that the power of symbolism can be very real). I think your average non-regular-church-going Brit would refer to this as a Christening and mean a public naming - not a Christian baptism although the ritual is called Baptism of Infants (or some such). Many, many families take their children off to church to be Christened (and therefore have to have godparents) with no more thought of its being religious than they had when they got married in church (makes for a prettier setting for the photos doesn't it?) That being said, although many, many modern godparents give no further to the vows they made on behalf of the child and, quite possibly, due to marriage break-ups etc. no further thought to the child, there are also godparents who are also absolutely delighted to be a special person in a child's life without giving a thought to the Christian aspect of their role. In my limited experience these godparents have generally been older people who have remained single or do have no children of their own. Godparents can be great - they can be an extra source of income for pocket money, and may even leave you something in their will! (I didn't have any godparents - I wasn't Christened.) > So Christianity is *there*, but generally not directly referred to. > Partly this could be because we are seeing things very much from > Harry's point of view. The Dursley's seem pretty much part > of 'secular Britain' to me - somehow I rather doubt that Harry was > dragged off to Church every Sunday. Agreed. I do not think that religion featured at all in the Dursley household. > Hogwarts appears to have decided (quite correctly, for a modern > specialist school) that it is interested in its students' magical > abilities, not which religion (if any) they profess - put a secular > upbringing together with a non-religious school in the modern UK and > it's entirely possible to get a teenage boy with no real knowledge > of, or interest in, religion, who wouldn't be likely to enquire where > a particular student or teacher went to on a Sunday morning, and > would probably be rather surprised to discover that it was to a > religious service. > > However, I think there has also been a deliberate authorial decision > *not* to refer to details of Christianity. I think that JKR wants to > say some very particular things about the nature of good, and evil, > and the hard decisions that have to be made when fighting evil. I > suspect that she has decided that adding any 'sectarian' dimensions > to that is just going to get in the way; I am reminded of what I read somewhere about William Golding's answer when asked why there were no girls in 'Lord of the Flies'. He replied that he wanted to keep the story simple and that the presence of girls would have been a complicating and distracting factor. Although, obviously, the girls may well have been quite distracting for the boys in the book, I'm fairly sure that Golding meant that girls would have distracted the *reader* from the central themes of the book. Pam From Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 30 08:38:46 2002 From: Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk (pamscotland) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 08:38:46 -0000 Subject: Voldemort AND Religion WAS Re: Religion in HP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40587 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > Religion in HP - the topic that is - lost its appeal for me a long > time ago. You can only debate the significance of the Easter and > Christmas holidays for so long. > > But something new has occured to me after reading all these marvellous > posts on the graveyard scene. First of all, they've really identified > why that scene made me feel so icky, in a way I couldn't quite put my > finger on. I didn't sit there reading the scene and going, "Oh this is > so sexually perverted" by any means, but now that I look, the elements > are there, and it goes a long way in explaining the revulsion I felt. > > As well, I think that the perversion of religion was there as well. > It's a very sacriligeous scene, isn't it? 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? 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. Occasionally (not often) the monuments may be left in the deconsecrated churchyard and the municipal authority will take over ground and operate it as a municipal cemetery. More likely the old churchyard is now a flattened piece of grass with interesting headstones set into the boundary wall. When I envisaged the graveyard in GoF I pictured our own local cemetery, first opened during Victoria's reign and clearly a monument not so much to God as to the rich Victorian merchants, shipbuilders and factory owners. It has huge stone chambers, enormous headstones and statues. 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. > > But what does that say about religion in the wizarding world? > > As noted, Voldemort twists at least three of the sacraments. There's > his rebirth in "baptism." The consumption of blood is a twisted > version of "communion," I really can't see that. It assumes that Voldemort had the Christian sacraments somewhere in his head - there's no evidence for that. Even if Voldemort had been raised in a nominally Christian society it does not mean that he would know anything at all about the sacrament of communion. Although I was brought up in a Christian family, until they left the Salvation Army to join the Baptist Church when I was 12 or so I had never heard of Holy Communion. I think we were taught to think of Jesus every time we ate and drank together rather than just at special 'communion' times. In many parts of the world, the consumption of blood has long been associated with the ingestion of the powers of the person/animal being consumed - and that's what I see in GoF. We all bring our own backgrounds to the reading of any book. 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. Perhaps in secular Britain (wizarding or muggle) Christian symbols should be seen as having a cultural significance, but not a spiritual one. Pam From crana at ntlworld.com Sun Jun 30 08:54:29 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 09:54:29 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Britishisms, swearing - BC - Translations References: Message-ID: <009101c22013$bf8929a0$d33068d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40588 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. But in the fourth book... Well, I didn't keep count, but I know Bill said, "Noone gives a damn what I look like..." and Ron said "Damn, it's [potions] still with Slytherin" (And Hermione made no comment on that one). I believe there was one other... Don't remember it off hand though. One final question: Is "bloody" a British swear word or not? I've heard it both ways." 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". "Damn" isn't really a curse word (it actually refers to an Indian coin of very little value, hence "I don't give a damn"); it's not strange that Hermione wouldn't pull the boys up on it. "Bloody"...well... a mum (sorry, mom) might tell off her toddler for saying it... but apart from that... it *is* a swear word but it's so so so mild that it isn't really. -------- Pip wrote: "There may be Ollivander, who would be unlikely to proclaim 'Makers of Fine Wands since 382 BC' if he didn't regard himself as at least nominally Christian (at least, all the practitioners of other religions that I know in the UK would *much* rather use BCE." Good point there, except most people I know who aren't of a particular faith use "BC"; it's only the people who are really really involved in their religion who use BCE. Is that different where you are? ----- Alexander wrote: "Hmm... maybe there are other translations (to different languages) that we should know about?" Those were funny :) I have just ordered myself the French version of CoS; my French isn't brilliant, but if I find anything funny I will post it up. Rosie, who was very pleased to find French CoS for ?3 cheaper, and delivered 5 weeks quicker, on amazon.fr than amazon.com ! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Jun 30 09:48:47 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 09:48:47 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40589 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > > OK, let me go at this a bit differently. Let's put Dean Thomas > aside for just a minute and go with a hypothetical. Let's say that > in the original PS, all students are able-bodied. The sorting of > Hanah Abbott is in the original text as follows: > > "A pink-faced girl with blonde pigtails stumbled out of line, put on the hat, which fell right down over her eyes, and sat down." > > Let's then say that some publicist decides the book is not > sufficiently inclusive because there are no children using > wheelchairs, and the publicist doesn't want to receive a bunch of > letters complaining about this. The text in SS is re-written as > follows: > > "A pink-faced girl with blonde pigtails rolled her wheelchair out of > line, put on the hat, which fell right down over her eyes." > > I suspect that members of this list would notice this clumsy change, > because we notice *everything.* But I doubt anyone would resent it > or suggest that this is an example of the disabled lobby throwing > their weight around, that it is tokenism, that the author's intent > has been corrupted, that American literature and media are no good > because of this sort of thing, that it is annoying, that it is > toadying, that it is pushy, that it is reverse discrimination. > Perhaps some people *would* say exactly that, but I personally > wouldn't bat an eye at this change. Maybe I'm wrong there and there > *would* be a chorus of outrage that an able-bodied character was > made to be disabled, but it's not a complaint I hear very often in > other contexts. I would most definitely be one of the outraged - Poor Hannah! To suddenly transform from a healthy, able-bodied girl into paraplegic, all in order to illustrate a point! . Seriously, however, I agree with those who view such changes with abhorrence. The problem (as has been said) is not with the change, but with the motives for the change. I've never liked the PC idea that if you change terminology, if you change the way reality is portrayed, you will change reality. If the author didn't conceive of Hannah Abbot as disabled, if she didn't conceive of ANY of the characters as disabled, then that's the world she has conceived. She is a person. Her mind reflects the reality in which she lives - which reality includes dismissal of the disabled as an integral and accepted part of society. That's an unpalatable fact, but it is a fact. Putting Hannah in a wheel chair is merely (IMO) sugaring over this fact. It's saccharine, it's insincere, it's strained, it's artificial. I would think less of JKR (in this hypothetical instance) if she had allowed such a change to be made. > > Similarly, if we imagine that the British version contained no > mention of Dean Thomas' height, but the American version described > him as "tall," no one would care. Again, the point is the *motive* of the change. I can think of no motive for this change other than an editorial mistake, so - no, I wouldn't mind it (in the same way). > > Two things here. > > Your friend should understand that referring to racial diversity > as "tokenism" will cause people like me to bristle every time, > because it really does trivialize our concerns. Tokenism is *not* a way to refer "racial diversity", IMO. It's the forced, artificial, self-righteous, hypocritical way of portraying racial diversity. It reminds me of the Numerus Clausus type of thinking - setting aside a set number of slots for the minority. I see it as dehumanizing. >I find it rather > inflammatory and insulting, to be honest with you. I would say that > people who appreciate diversity in literature and media do *not* > want to see tokens; they want to see diversity -- a recognition that > people of all races can make a contribution to the work being > written or produced. But it seems that a lot of what happens in American media (from my faraway observation post) *is* tokenism. That's my sense of it, at any rate. I'd love to see a true depiction of the racial diversity of the American nation - I just don't feel that I get it. What I do get are TV series which - if I believed them - would persuade me that 80% of all American judges and 60% of all American doctors are black. I suggest that those who fight for racial diversity to be portrayed on the screen, start directing their efforts in rectifying the inequalities that actually exist in *reality.* > > > And, I didn't say that a book had to be 100% homogenous. It's > > just that, sometimes, the mentions of aspects of racial/ethnic > > diversity in publications appear to be "self-conscious" > > insertions that don't appear to have an intrinsic purpose in the > > story rather than a natural part of the work. When I write, > > there is racial diversity because it is MY intent, not the intent > > of outsiders who think that they know better than I do what > > people ought to be reading. > > See, this is what is so odd to me. If we say that Ron is pale and > has red hair and freckles, that's OK. If we say Angelina is black, > that's "self-conscious;" that it has no "intrinsic purpose." Why > should there be a different standard that requires a *purpose* for > the inclusion of Angelina's race but no purpose for the inclusion >of Ron's race? There shouldn't. Of course. But the question isn't about "should" but about "is." Did the author include the description because it is part of her intrinsic vision and in the flow of the writing process, or was it constrained upon her externally? No matter how right it is that it *shouldn't* be different, it still undermines the integrity of the work if it *is* different (in the author's mind), and a change is made according to that "shouldn't." Just to make things clear, I personally don't feel constraint or artificiality in JKR's depiction of racial diversity in the Harry Potter books. I've actually always taken it for granted that Dean Thomas was originally black (in JKR's mind), and never understood why it was mentioned specifically in the US edition and not in the British one. It was made clear to me by what has been said here that for the British there are strong allusions that point to his race that would elude the American audience. In this case, it's merely another of those translations to American (e.g., Mum-Mom, etc.). Botched up, obviously, but in principle no more irritating than the other changes. I am however very much against the practice of changing a work of art to make it better fit a certain ideology or world view. I don't think this is what happened in this case, but since I understood that that was the main issue of debate, I had to throw in my two cents .. oops, I mean, of course, tuppence ;-). Naama From crana at ntlworld.com Sun Jun 30 11:16:40 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 12:16:40 +0100 Subject: To clarify what I said earlier - race (quite long) Message-ID: <002f01c22027$a3e36f80$24b268d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40590 I know I'm not very good at expressing things, but I thought of an analogy to what I was saying earlier, that it was (to my mind) insulting to just describe someone as black and assume that we now have a mental picture of them, etc. Imagine a book set in a totally black community (in the past, or something) - Situation 1. Now imagine that for some strange reason there is a white person who appears in the community (shipwrecked on their island, whatever). It would be worth pointing out that this person was white, as otherwise we would assume all the characters to be black from the setting, and this character's whiteness would be the most striking thing about them in the community. If the book was about a community that was a mixture of different races (situation 2), it would not be that important to point out that a character was white (unless it was central to the plot), because we would assume there to be people from many different races anyway. Telling us someone is white doesn't really add much to the story in this case. Now if we change "white" for "black" and "black" for "white" here: Describing a character just as "black" only really makes sense in Situation 1 - where we should assume from the setting that all the other characters are white. In Britain, this is not the case (well, not in most communities), and it clearly isn't at Hogwarts. Doing this makes Hogwarts seem *more* monocultural because it implies that we are in Situation 1. I know someone said that if someone was black, that would be the most striking thing about them in a Scottish boarding school... but it's not, is it? We know that there are characters from all kinds of ethnic backgrounds here, and JKR obviously doesn't have the narrow view of ethnic origins as "different colour" - we have the same sorts of name clues for Irish and (probably) Lancastrian characters as we do for ones of Indian descent. The Potterverse is obviously Situation 2 - a mix of different races, colours, origins, even kinds of diversity we don't have in the Muggle world (hags, giants, werewolves). It therefore doesn't add anything to the story if we just learn that a character is black, does it? The only way that information alone adds anything is if we are meant to assume from this that the character must fit certain stereotypes of black people; from my point of view, this is *not* desirable! I mean, with say Hermione, don't the bushy hair and the big teeth really add something to the haughty, geeky attitude she has? And if she didn't have those, we wouldn't be able to see her teeth shrink, her hair get smoothed for the Yule Ball, or her being teased by e.g. Snape. These physical descriptions *add* something to our knowledge and understanding of her character. Take Harry. His floppy hair is important (like his dad; he's always getting told off by the Dursleys; the hair-regrowing incident), his green eyes (like his mum), his skinny frame (Aunt Marge's comments about him being runty, having bad parents; contrast with Dudley; comical effect of him having to wear Dudley's huge old clothes), his scar, etc, etc, etc. Ron's distinctive red hair and freckles is important in his family, and some have suggested that the red hair might be an important clue for all sorts of theories later. Even Malfoy. His cold grey eyes (just like his dad's), don't they just scream "evil"? Do you see what I mean? Maybe some people read the descriptions just to picture the characters, but for me, they are helpful in understanding characters better, and in some cases various incidents depend on a character's physical appearance. I know this is quite a long-winded way of explaining this idea, but I'm not good at doing this. It wasn't obvious to *me* as a UK reader that he was black, but I didn't really think of him as being any colour in particular, just being Dean, and I reckon most kids probably wouldn't have inferred that either from the details we're given about him. Thus, it seems strange to me that it was inserted just to clarify for Americans who would not understand UK-specific clues, but I am happy to accept this. If it turns out later that it was really crucially important to the plot or to his character to insert for Americans that Dean Thomas was black, and/or the omission of this from the UK version was just a mistake that will be corrected in later editions, I will eat my hat, I promise. It would be interesting to know what is said about the Sorting in foreign-language editions . Alexander, can you help? I'm very sorry to anyone who has got offended by this topic, as I know anything to do with race is a sensitive issue, and I hope no one feels that I am trying to marginalise any group or the general idea of diversity. I also hope you managed to understand my confused way of explaining things. Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 30 11:38:30 2002 From: Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk (pamscotland) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 11:38:30 -0000 Subject: To clarify what I said earlier - race (quite long) In-Reply-To: <002f01c22027$a3e36f80$24b268d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40591 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rosie" wrote: > I know I'm not very good at expressing things, but I thought of an analogy to what I was saying earlier, that it was (to my mind) insulting to just describe someone as black and assume that we now have a mental picture of them, etc. Well done, Rosie, I think you've expressed this very well. It certainly accords with my view of Hogwarts. Incidentally, I didn't see the post that suggested black faces would be unusual in a Scottish boarding school. Until 18 months ago there was a fee-paying boarding school in my town in the west of Scotland and the proportion of black, Asian, Oriental etc. etc. faces was probably a little higher amongst the boarders than in the population as a whole. This was because children from all over the world were sent to school here by parents who could afford to pay the tuition and boarding fees. There would have been no need to mention there was a black face at that school. Pam From pat_mahony at hotmail.com Sun Jun 30 08:03:03 2002 From: pat_mahony at hotmail.com (kangasboy) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 08:03:03 -0000 Subject: Animagi Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40592 I am sorry if this has already been brought up, but I don't remember it ever happening. . . 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? Kangasboy From divaclv at aol.com Sun Jun 30 14:07:57 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 14:07:57 -0000 Subject: Muumuus? Kilts? Wah? (WAS Re: Humour) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40593 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "aldrea279" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "c_voth312" wrote: > Um...in my copy of GoF, the wizard was wearing a flowery night > dress. Does it actually say kilt/muumuu in the copy ya'll have, or > what? > > ~Aldrea, wondering if this is another one of those translation things. I seem to recall the word "muumuu" popping up in the copy I read, although I could be mistaken--it was certainly a loose, flowery dress of some description. If so, it's probably another one of those "translation things." The kilt discussion was indeed irrelevant--although I do know gentles who go commando (one of them proved it by inadvertantly flashing the populace--long story). ~Christi From divaclv at aol.com Sun Jun 30 14:16:14 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 14:16:14 -0000 Subject: Religion in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40594 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pamscotland" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > I think your average non-regular-church-going Brit would refer to > this as a Christening and mean a public naming - not a Christian > baptism although the ritual is called Baptism of Infants (or some > such). Many, many families take their children off to church to be > Christened (and therefore have to have godparents) with no more > thought of its being religious than they had when they got married in > church (makes for a prettier setting for the photos doesn't it?) > That being said, although many, many modern godparents give no > further to the vows they made on behalf of the child and, quite > possibly, due to marriage break-ups etc. no further thought to the > child, there are also godparents who are also absolutely delighted to > be a special person in a child's life without giving a thought to the > Christian aspect of their role. In my limited experience these > godparents have generally been older people who have remained single > or do have no children of their own. > > Godparents can be great - they can be an extra source of income for > pocket money, and may even leave you something in their will! (I > didn't have any godparents - I wasn't Christened.) Also, I think in Sirius' case his role can be traced to a different archetype--that of the "fairy godmother" (okay, godfather in his case, but in the fairy tales it's usually a woman who gets the job), the one who advises and aids the hero, giving them direction. Like Sleeping Beauty's godparents, Sirius can't remove the evil in Harry's life, but he can help out a little. ~Christi From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun Jun 30 14:32:57 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 14:32:57 -0000 Subject: Cruciatus and Imperius (Some TBAY), Dark Magic Power Boosts In-Reply-To: <000101c21eb2$935aab40$609ecdd1@istu757> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40595 --- 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? > 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. Naama From vincentlawyer at yahoo.com Sun Jun 30 12:36:11 2002 From: vincentlawyer at yahoo.com (vinnygp) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 12:36:11 -0000 Subject: Magical education system Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40596 So, about the magical education system. Does the middle-class wizarding family have an option besides sending their progeny to an expensive private school? I don't know about the UK or Europe (although I live and work in Germany, I still haven't grasped the complex German education system), but in the United States, most everybody goes to the public school, an institution funded by the State. All your books, passed through generations of foul-minded graffitti artists, are provided, free of charge. The crowded classes are taught by underpaid State employees. Smaller, smarter, less aggressive students are beat up by the large, savage children of the tobacco-chewing, Coor's Light-drinking, tin can-in-the-overgrown-yard- in-front-of-the-double-wide-shooting, domestic-abusing redneck riff- raff from the backwoods of the county (no bitterness here). Apart from the crowding, since the entire county school system had fewer than 1,500 students, this was certainly my experience, but since I was from a family of six supported only by the wages of a State Policeman, another underpaid State employee (I sometimes picture my own house when I read about the Weasleys'), it was the best we could manage. I wonder if the Wizarding World has something similar? I mean, not everyone can go to a private boarding school. Maybe the Ministry of Magic has a similar set-up. Of course, it raises the question of whether or not the Ministry even collects taxes. What do you think a wizard's public school would be like? Would they use the same bools as Hogwart's? Would they get school wands? What would the school buses be like? How fondly I remember those great smelly yellow contraptions filled to capacity with loud children in a closed environment. Whlie we're on the subject, 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? What do wizards do for education in the first ten years of their lives? Homeschooling perhaps? Nothing wrong with homeschooling, of course; I was homeschooled for the latter part of my education. Or maybe that's where public schools come in. And what about higher education or university? Is it normal to go straight from high (secondary) school to your job? Look at Percy, in the Dept. of International Magical Cooperation with no degree in law or international relations or anything. Where do wizards go to learn about, say, Magizoolology, to become dragon handlers like Charlie; or Education, to go on the board of school governors like Lucius Malfoy; where do Aurors or hit wizards go to learn their stuff? Correspondence courses? And why does almost everybody work for the Ministry of Magic? Is there no private sector? OK, I'm done. Vince From bard7696 at aol.com Sun Jun 30 16:29:41 2002 From: bard7696 at aol.com (darrin_burnett) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 16:29:41 -0000 Subject: Magical education system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40597 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "vinnygp" wrote: > I wonder if the Wizarding World has something similar? I mean, not > everyone can go to a private boarding school. Maybe the Ministry of > Magic has a similar set-up. Of course, it raises the question of > whether or not the Ministry even collects taxes. > You know, something just occured to me. Do we really have any evidence that there are British Wizard children NOT in Hogwarts? I can't think of any passage that refers to a child with magical ability being kept out of Hogwarts due to finances. The Weasleys, poor as they are, apparently manage to send all their students to school, so it is possible there is no tuition, per se. The only reference to any tuition is early in PS/SS when Uncle Vernon says he's not paying for Harry to go to school and Hagrid says: "His name's been down since he was a baby." Odd, Hagrid is not denying there is tuition, but it's never brought up again. It is also apparently possible for a UK Wizard to go to another school. Lucius Malfoy almost sent Draco to Durmstrang, we're told. Perhaps there is an "out-of-district" tuition charge. We can surmise from CoS that Wizards and Witches are the minority. "If we hadn't married Muggles, we'd have died out," Ron says at one point. Hogsmeade is the only all-Wizard village in England, and I don't believe it is very big. Even Diagon and Knockturn alleys aren't all that big. I submit it is entirely possible that all, or at least almost all, 11- 18-year-old Wizards and Witches in England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland are currently in Hogwarts. If there are those that aren't, I would guess they have Muggle parents who refused to allow them to go. > Whlie we're on the subject, 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? > What do wizards do for education in the first ten years of their > lives? Homeschooling perhaps? Nothing wrong with homeschooling, of > course; I was homeschooled for the latter part of my education. Or > maybe that's where public schools come in. > Well, kids like Harry and Hermione went to the public schools. Where Ron and his siblings went is indeed a curious subject. Reading is apparently something universally needed, but I'm not seeing any indications that any math past the basics is needed. Certainly higher math functions like a U.S. child would learn in high school seem to be beside the point when magic makes rules of math and science irrelevant. My guess is that the Weasleys were homeschooled and taught how to read and write and do basic math by their folks. Muggle science, literature and history would be useless to a wizard, and since all first-years have to take History of Magic and Potions, it would seem Wizard history and science are not huge parts of the homeschool. > And what about higher education or university? Is it normal to go > straight from high (secondary) school to your job? Look at Percy, in > the Dept. of International Magical Cooperation with no degree in law > or international relations or anything. Where do wizards go to learn > about, say, Magizoolology, to become dragon handlers like Charlie; or > Education, to go on the board of school governors like Lucius Malfoy; > where do Aurors or hit wizards go to learn their stuff? > Correspondence courses? It seems like a good old-fashioned apprenticeship program is at work here. The relationship between Percy and Crouch strikes me very much as a boss and intern. I would guess Charlie the Dragon Handler went through something similar. > And why does almost everybody work for the Ministry of Magic? Is > there no private sector? > There's Gringotts, and all the shops and craftsmen on Diagon Alley. The professional Quidditch League does not appear to be state-run, and there would be all sorts of ancillary jobs that go along with a sports league. Someone has to be running and working in a broomstick factory, robe garment shop and book printing press. Wandmakers would need some source of wood, indicating there is a lumber trade. And of course, there is the Daily Prophet. And SOMEONE has to work at Bernie Bott's, coming up with new flavors. We don't exactly know what Lucius Malfoy does for a living -- my guess is that he sat around waiting for his father to die, so he could inherit it -- but he does not appear to have a state job. Jobs are there. You just have to know where to look. Darrin -- Wants to work at Bernie Botts. From editor at texas.net Sun Jun 30 16:33:07 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 11:33:07 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) References: Message-ID: <002501c22053$d76833a0$2f7c63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40598 Naama said, in this vein of "why they added 'Black boy' to Dean Thomas' description": > I am however very much against the practice of changing a work of art > to make it better fit a certain ideology or world view. I don't think > this is what happened in this case, but since I understood that that > was the main issue of debate, I had to throw in my two cents .. oops, > I mean, of course, tuppence ;-). Okay. I agree, they should not have added it, especially not capitalized. I don't think there are Black people any more than there are White people. It was clumsily done. But I must throw to you my personal least-favorite literature change, from the Just So Stories by Kipling, from "How the Leopard Got His Spots." After the Ethiopian has changed his skin to black, and then dotted the leopard all over with his fingertips (nicely explaining the little rosettes of dots), and the leopard asks why the Ethiopian doesn't go for spots too, what Kipling originally wrote was, "Plain black's best for a nigger." In every single copy I have seen that was printed within, say, the last 20 years (at least), this has been changed to remove "nigger." This alteration offends me because it changes the words the author chose. Those words came from an older culture and value system, but they are the words he wrote. I object to changing them to pander to the sensibilities of a modern audience. In the spirit of Naama's comment,then--was it wrong to change HP, and right to change Kipling? I'd say no. Any takers on this? If so, move it over to Chatter, as we've moved from directly HP-related to a broader issue and a different author. --Amanda From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sun Jun 30 16:51:06 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 16:51:06 -0000 Subject: Magical education system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40599 Vince wrote: > > I wonder if the Wizarding World has something similar? I mean, not > everyone can go to a private boarding school. Maybe the Ministry of > Magic has a similar set-up. Of course, it raises the question of > whether or not the Ministry even collects taxes. This has come up before. Several people have pointed out that there may be other schools in Britain, only not as famous, for all those who are not ready to pay for Hogwarts (even if they have been admited, which, according to canon, happens to all magical newborns) However, the Weasleys, reportedly one of the poorest magical families, can afford going to Hogwarts. Maybe there are especial govermental aids so they can buy books or some other form of help to the studies. That would explain how three galleons and some pocket change in (IIRC) CoS allows for the entire collection of Lockharts books for five people (four, since they get Harry's free autographed copies). Libraries will accept a minimal payment for a receipt, give them books, and then get the money from the goverment. In my country, there are schools that are theoretically private, but in which families only pay a small amount, since they are "concerted" with the goverment (and thus, the goverment pays the rest of the money for them). > While we're on the subject, 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? > What do wizards do for education in the first ten years of their > lives? Homeschooling perhaps? Nothing wrong with homeschooling, of > course; I was homeschooled for the latter part of my education. Or > maybe that's where public schools come in. > > And what about higher education or university? Is it normal to go > straight from high (secondary) school to your job? Look at Percy, in > the Dept. of International Magical Cooperation with no degree in law > or international relations or anything. Where do wizards go to learn > about, say, Magizoolology, to become dragon handlers like Charlie; or > Education, to go on the board of school governors like Lucius Malfoy; > where do Aurors or hit wizards go to learn their stuff? > Correspondence courses? For the elementary and higher education I have to go back to the Middle Ages, which is generally accepted is the age where most of the wizard world seems stuck, so to speak. In many ways, their social and economical organization is still very much like the one Europe had in what is generally known as "Dark Ages" (with sense, too, since it's the time where witches and wizards were though to exist. Since, according to Potterverse, they went into hiding at that time, they would have found no need to keep the technological pace of muggles). In the Middle Ages there where no school as such. To my knowledge (bear in mind, though, that in this particular sector I'm out of my range), the only way to get an education was to gat a private teacher especifically for your sons (major noblemen) or to be educated by the church (minor noblemen and rich landowners/merchants). The monasteries would offer teaching for a fee, and they would accept kids between (aproximately) 10 and 15 years old. Before that they where considered too small to learn (they didn't know that the smaller the child, the easier they learn), and small children generally spent their time learning their parents trade and playing. Older children (once finished the education the church was willing to give them) either followed their parents trade (managing the land, or going into bussiness) or branched into other trades (especially if they weren't first-born) by buying an apprentice place with some other bussinessman (or joining the church). The boys with an education where not craved for, by any stretch, but they did have their uses: a banking system in its infancy needed people who knew how to add up, and armies always need people who know how to aim catapults, to name a few. > And why does almost everybody work for the Ministry of Magic? Is > there no private sector? > > OK, I'm done. > > Vince There is a private sector: look at Diagon Alley, and all the non-ministerial shops there. You also get the shops in Hogsmeade. So there *is* a private sector. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From editor at texas.net Sun Jun 30 16:58:29 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 11:58:29 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Muumuus? Kilts? Wah? (WAS Re: Humour) References: Message-ID: <001d01c22057$5d02bfa0$f77663d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40600 Christi said: > I seem to recall the word "muumuu" popping up in the copy I read, > although I could be mistaken--it was certainly a loose, flowery dress > of some description. If so, it's probably another one of > those "translation things." Ye Gods. I guess it falls to a L.O.O.N. to actually get up and get the books and Look It Up. Here. >From the Brit version (okay, Canadian, but they got the Brit version): "One of them was a very old wizard who was wearing a long flowery nightgown." (p. 77, description of Archie) Only other odd clothing description: "'There's a bloke walking round in a kilt and a poncho.'" (p. 72, Mr. Roberts the Muggle is the speaker, as he greets Arthur Weasley. The US version's wording is the same in both instances. On a quick scan, I couldn't find any other clothing descriptions (I thought the African magicians might have been wearing muumuus in at least one version, but in both it is merely long robes). So the word "kilt" does appear, but not in relation to Archie; Archie is wearing a nightgown, and nowhere that I could find was any permutation of "muumuu." Okay? --Amanda, L.O.O.N.ageist From Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 30 16:59:49 2002 From: Pam at barkingdog.demon.co.uk (pamscotland) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 16:59:49 -0000 Subject: Magical education system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40601 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? I like to think that the pupils of every primary school in the UK and Ireland may have contact with a magical teacher who, to all intents and purposes, is just another member of the staff (and I think I know who it was at my daughter's primary school!). I don't think there are enough magical teachers for every single school so some of them may be peripatetic specialists - spend a day or half a day each week in several different schools. 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. Pam From ntg85 at prodigy.net Sun Jun 30 18:10:11 2002 From: ntg85 at prodigy.net (NTG85) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 13:10:11 -0500 Subject: cultural references (was: Britishisms, swearing) References: <1025430924.1695.40226.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <3D1F4982.1EB061F2@prodigy.net> No: HPFGUIDX 40602 Rosie: >>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 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. Rosie: >>"Damn" isn't really a curse word (it actually refers to an Indian coin of very little value, hence "I don't give a damn"); it's not strange that Hermione wouldn't pull the boys up on it.<< That makes sense, what with all that imperialism stuff... Around here, it always was a swear word, unless it was used in a religious context, and even then you had better speak it softly if you're young. Kids usually start cursing (again, around here) in middle school/junior high, and swear like sailors at that, but make sure teachers aren't listening or they get a detention. Considering that, I suppose if a kid started reading HP in elememntary school, and was in junior high by the time he read GoF, there would be no problem with mild cursing. Another question, while we're on the subject of cultural differences: Detentions in my neck of the woods are time spent right after school, either doing work in the classroom or (if your teacher's nice) doing homework. I understand that students are at Hogwarts for the whole day, and the threat of not going home right after class isn't really there, but is there any reason a detention would be served at midnight? And in the dangerous Forbidden Forest? Is this just a plot device JKR uses? Eloise: >>Incidentally, when you say 'American measurements', that's not exactly true. If you put an American pint of water in your potion, you might find Snape making some sarcastic comments. The English pint is one of the few things that is actually slightly larger than its American equivalent! ;-)<< I figured it wasn't. I didn't know what to call it. I've heard it called the English system, but I wasn't sure if that was right, so I just said American, because it's used in America. >>The supermarkets display the equivalent price per pound of goods, but it is *illegal* actually to sell loose goods by the pound. It's a mad world.<< It certainly is! It's illegal to sell by the pound?! The Random Monkey, whose car gets sixty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way she likes it! From Edblanning at aol.com Sun Jun 30 18:46:02 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 14:46:02 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] cultural references (was: Britishisms, swearing) Message-ID: <18.2170c940.2a50abea@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40603 The random Monkey: > Rosie: > >>"Damn" isn't really a curse word (it actually refers to an Indian coin > of very little value, hence "I don't give a damn"); it's not strange > that Hermione wouldn't pull the boys up on it.<< Sorry, I missed this or I would have commented last time. That is a definition I have never come across (and it's not in my dictionary, either). I have always understood it to mean a curse (as in 'damn it', or more unkindly, 'you') or as a short form of 'damnation', which curse also passes my lips fairly frequently. These definitions *are* in my dictionary (Oxford Reference). There are other forms of expression following the 'don't give a....' format, which don't have any monetary value associated. For example, 'I don't give a tinker's cuss'. I have far too much delicacy to mention the other one that comes to mind. ;-) Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From crana at ntlworld.com Sun Jun 30 18:46:41 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 19:46:41 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] cultural references (was: Britishisms, swearing) References: <1025430924.1695.40226.m12@yahoogroups.com> <3D1F4982.1EB061F2@prodigy.net> Message-ID: <000801c22066$79e06fa0$23b068d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40604 Me (earlier): >>"Damn" isn't really a curse word (it actually refers to an Indian coin of very little value, hence "I don't give a damn"); it's not strange that Hermione wouldn't pull the boys up on it.<< Random monkey: "That makes sense, what with all that imperialism stuff... Around here, it always was a swear word, unless it was used in a religious context, and even then you had better speak it softly if you're young." I'm probably just being really stupid, but how would damn be used in a religious context? Can you give me an example? She also said: "Another question, while we're on the subject of cultural differences: Detentions in my neck of the woods are time spent right after school, either doing work in the classroom or (if your teacher's nice) doing homework. I understand that students are at Hogwarts for the whole day, and the threat of not going home right after class isn't really there, but is there any reason a detention would be served at midnight? And in the dangerous Forbidden Forest? Is this just a plot device JKR uses?" Umm, in some schools, detention is just where you sit there and do your homework or whatever, as you say, but in other schools, in a detention you have to do something helpful for a teacher, for example sort lost property or help put up a display. I presume they went at midnight because that was the time they had to go (for some reason) to carry out that particular task? When the boys have detentions at other times, it just depends when the teachers/members of staff want them, but then for example Lockhart makes Harry carry on until about midnight. Eloise: >>The supermarkets display the equivalent price per pound of goods, but it is *illegal* actually to sell loose goods by the pound. It's a mad world.<< Random monkey: "It certainly is! It's illegal to sell by the pound?!" Umm, yep, some people have been arrested (well, at least one). They are called the Metric Martyrs... this is gettin OT... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From crana at ntlworld.com Sun Jun 30 18:48:37 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 19:48:37 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] cultural references (was: Britishisms, swearing) Apologies for short post References: <18.2170c940.2a50abea@aol.com> Message-ID: <000e01c22066$bf36fc40$23b068d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40605 > Rosie: > >>"Damn" isn't really a curse word (it actually refers to an Indian coin > of very little value, hence "I don't give a damn"); it's not strange > that Hermione wouldn't pull the boys up on it.<< Eloise: "Sorry, I missed this or I would have commented last time. That is a definition I have never come across (and it's not in my dictionary, either). I have always understood it to mean a curse (as in 'damn it', or more unkindly, 'you') or as a short form of 'damnation', which curse also passes my lips fairly frequently. These definitions *are* in my dictionary (Oxford Reference)." Ah, yeh, I think you're right in that for example "Damn it all" or whatever comes from damnation, sort of a thing, but "I don't give a damn" (apparently) refers to the coin. As in Gone with the Wind. Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com Sun Jun 30 19:41:41 2002 From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 19:41:41 -0000 Subject: looking for information? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40606 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "odawn1965" wrote:> > Is there a website that explains the meaning of all the names? > > Also, looking for a comprehensive list of the foods named in the > books. (The WW foods, "Bertie Botts EFB", etc.) I humbly invite you to visit the Harry Potter Lexicon. The word comprehensive fits it rather nicely...and it's getting comprehensiver all the time. http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon You'll find name meanings in the Which Wizard section, after many of the entries for the characters, and if you check the Resources page you'll find listings for web sites that specialize in name meanings and go into much more detail. The food pages (under Wizarding World => Magical Things) list every single types of food item in the books, and there's a wonderful essay on the subject as well. Steve Vander Ark who lives there under the name of Sanders (Winnie the Pooh reference, in case you wondered) From Ali at zymurgy.org Sun Jun 30 20:18:40 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 20:18:40 -0000 Subject: Severus aka Perseus: the implications - clutching at straws? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40607 Following on from the Snape anagram Perseus Evans thread, here are some of the details of the Perseus myth: - He had winged feet (bat like metaphors spring to mind with Snape) - He used a mirror so that he would not have to look at the Medusa when he approached her (Snape was verrrry interested in that Foe Glass). - Perseus beheaded the Medusa - Perseus accidently killed his grandfather, but I can't think of any other family links which would be pertinent to an Evans' family story. Of course, at the mention of the word "beheaded", I immediately thought of Harry surely he can't be like the Medusa? BUT:- The Medusa turned people to stone by looking them in the eyes. We know Harry's eyes will be important, but how? We know that in PS/SS JKR dropped several people into the story for no reason. So perhaps, Dudley's friend Piers will make a come back. Could Harry lose control and turn Piers to Stone? "Piers" is a variant of "Peter" meaning stone or rock. The Medusa had snake-tresses for her hair. Harry of course has very untidy hair that sticks out in all directions and an affinity with snakes because of his abilty to speak Parseltongue. (This is where any superficial resemblance ends as he is not ugly like the Medusa etc etc) I know this is probably another far-fetched conspiracy theory, but heh, what's the harm? Ali From cindysphynx at comcast.net Sun Jun 30 20:40:49 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 20:40:49 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40608 I think I can keep this reply on topic. We'll see. We'll see. ;-) ****************** Rosie said: > I know I'm not very good at expressing things, but I thought of an >analogy to what I was saying earlier, that it was (to my mind) >insulting to just describe someone as black and assume that we now >have a mental picture of them, etc. > > Imagine a book set in a totally black community (in the past, or >something) - Situation 1. Now imagine that for some strange reason >there is a white person who appears in the community (shipwrecked >on their island, whatever). It would be worth pointing out that >this person was white, as otherwise we would assume all the >characters to be black from the setting, and this character's >whiteness would be the most striking thing about them in the >community. For the record, I couldn't find your previous remarks, Rosie. So I hope I don't misconstrue anything you're saying in your clarification. I'll try not to. OK. I'll go with you on your first point, above. Rosie: > If the book was about a community that was a mixture of different >races (situation 2), it would not be that important to point out >that a character was white (unless it was central to the plot), >because we would assume there to be people from many different >races anyway. Telling us someone is white doesn't really add much >to the story in this case. Mmmm, you're losing me there. I think I *have* seen descriptions of race like this in interracial settings. Authors seem to do this quite a lot, actually. I've seen it in literature involving war, prisons, schools. The author will sometimes toss in a description of race, even if it is not done quite as pointedly as it was with Dean Thomas, that is, openly stating the character's race. So I'm not sure I'm with you on this point, but let's continue. Rosie: > Describing a character just as "black" only really makes sense in >Situation 1 - where we should assume from the setting that all the >other characters are white. In Britain, this is not the case (well, >not in most communities), and it clearly isn't at Hogwarts. Doing >this makes Hogwarts seem *more* monocultural because it implies >that we are in Situation 1. Here, I disagree. I'll let you in on a little secret, Rosie. ;-) I have been to London, and so I know that London is very diverse. I haven't spent any appreciable time in other parts of the UK. And I would have bet actual *money* that there is almost no racial diversity at all in Scotland or other parts of the UK that are less urban than London. That is one reason, I suspect, why Lee Jordan's dreadlocks didn't register with me as a conclusive indication that he was black. In addition, I would have been quite sure that you wouldn't find *any* black people at a British boarding school. After all, my experience with British boarding schools is that these are the places where you will find members of the Royal Family. ;-) So, no. I disagree that stating Dean Thomas' race in the U.S. version of the book implies that Hogwarts is more monocultural than JKR intended it to be. In the U.K., maybe. In the U.S., no. Rosie: > The Potterverse is obviously Situation 2 - a mix of different >races, colours, origins, even kinds of diversity we don't have in >the Muggle world (hags, giants, werewolves). > It therefore doesn't add anything to the story if we just learn >that a character is black, does it? The only way that information >alone adds anything is if we are meant to assume from this that the >character must fit certain stereotypes of black people; from my >point of view, this is *not* desirable! What does it add if we just learn that a character is black? I'd say the answer *has* to be the same thing we learn by just knowing that the character is white. In *both* cases, we learn an objective, observable fact about the character that might or might not turn out to be significant. If the character is white and that turns out to be insignificant, no problem. If the character is black and that turns out to be insignificant, still no problem. I really think the same standard should apply. Now, I think that the race of both Angelina and Dean *is* worth mentioning in the HP books. We learn that Angelina is black. What does that add to the backstory? A few things, IMHO. We learn that Hogwarts is multi-racial (see my remarks above). We learn that a black person can be a star Quiddich player without having her race be an issue. We learn that interracial dating is acceptable at Hogwarts because no one bats an eye. We can assume interracial dating is OK in the Weasley household, as Fred never worries that his parents will be upset by his dating Angelina. So I can read as much into Angelina's description as black as someone else might read into the Weasley's red hair. What to make of Dean? Eh, who knows? So far, he has done nothing. But the fact that he is black and is in Harry's *dorm* means there isn't any formal or informal racial segregation at Hogwarts -- black Hogwarts students exist and everyone is *fine* with that. So again, his race does tell me a little something about Hogwarts. Maybe it is something you already know because you are more familiar with the UK than I am. I'm afraid I also have to disagree that the mere fact that a character is described as black conjures up racial stereotypes. I certainly doesn't for me. The description of Dean Thomas conjures up a visual image for me of skin color. The expectations I would have going forward would be that certain inconsistent physical descriptions wouldn't be used for Dean. If he is described as black and is then described as beet red, this would cause me to suspect a pretty big FLINT. ;-) But no, I wouldn't have any expectations about his behavior. Rosie: > Take Harry. His floppy hair is important (like his dad; he's >always getting told off by the Dursleys; the hair-regrowing >incident), his green eyes (like his mum), his skinny frame (Aunt >Marge's comments about him being runty, having bad parents; >contrast with Dudley; comical effect of him having to wear Dudley's >huge old clothes), his scar, etc, etc, etc. I think my view of the purpose of character description is much less utilitarian than yours appears to be. I thought the main purpose of character description is to give the reader a visual image so that the character comes alive. Let's assume PS/SS was not part of a series but instead was always intended to be just a single book. Does that mean Hermione's oversized teeth shouldn't be mentioned because they aren't enlarged in the first book? That her bushy hair shouldn't be mentioned because she doesn't slick it back until the fourth book? These descriptive features strike me as something that can help flesh out the character; I see no reason to expect that each one will be the foundation for a plot development. > Even Malfoy. His cold grey eyes (just like his dad's), don't they >just scream "evil"? This is interesting. "Cold" screams "evil." "Grey" just screams "grey," to me, anyway. Rosie: > It wasn't obvious to *me* as a UK reader that he was black, but I >didn't really think of him as being any colour in particular, just >being Dean, and I reckon most kids probably wouldn't have inferred >that either from the details we're given about him. Thus, it seems >strange to me that it was inserted just to clarify for Americans >who would not understand UK-specific clues, but I am happy to >accept this. Fair enough. As I said before, you seem to understand that boarding schools in the UK are diverse, which is something I didn't know. But if most Brits would assume Hogwarts was racially diverse, and if readers in the U.S. might *not* make that assumption, then doesn't this cry out for some sort of change to advise U.S. readers of what their UK counterparts already know? I think one thing that has really *bothered* me about the discussion of this subject is the subtext that a decision to portray diversity to the U.S. market is most likely motivated by "political correctness," with political correctness spoken of pejoratively. Some people seem quite inflexible in their belief that (1) the change of Dean Thomas' race was done without the permission of or over the objection of the author, or (2) that it was done to appease those irritating and annoying people in the U.S. who have *ruined* popular culture by pressing for diversity in literature and media. And I maintain that the reason some people may be clinging to those beliefs in the absence of any real knowledge about why the change was made is because the change involves *race.* Rosie: > If it turns out later that it was really crucially important to >the plot or to his character to insert for Americans that Dean >Thomas was black, and/or the omission of this from the UK version >was just a mistake that will be corrected in later editions, I will >eat my hat, I promise. Well, OK. ;-) I would say, however, that Dean's race may have already served part of its purpose. For a U.S. reader like me, it is the *only* definitive indication in the first book that Hogwarts has black students -? something you had sufficient information to assume and something I didn't. It tells me something about Hogwarts, so it has served its purpose. I don't require or expect that Dean's race become crucially important in future books -- any more than I require that Hermione's race become important. I wrote: > > Your friend should understand that referring to racial diversity > > as "tokenism" will cause people like me to bristle every time, > > because it really does trivialize our concerns. > Naama wrote: > Tokenism is *not* a way to refer "racial diversity", IMO. It's the > forced, artificial, self-righteous, hypocritical way of portraying > racial diversity. It reminds me of the Numerus Clausus type of > thinking - setting aside a set number of slots for the minority. I > see it as dehumanizing. Mmmm, I think we're saying the same thing. Maybe. Tokenism (in the U.S.) is a perjorative word used to suggest that minorities are being hired or cast just to fulfill some quota. I objected to its usage in this debate for that reason, so I take it that we agree. I think. Naama: > But it seems that a lot of what happens in American media (from my > faraway observation post) *is* tokenism. That's my sense of it, at > any rate. I'd love to see a true depiction of the racial diversity >of > the American nation - I just don't feel that I get it. What I do >get > are TV series which - if I believed them - would persuade me that >80% > of all American judges and 60% of all American doctors are black. I think it would be a mistake to assume that watching American TV or movies will give you a realistic picture about much of anything in the U.S. If you observed American media, you would conclude that "prostitute" is the career of choice for a very large percentage of American women. You'd also think that the U.S. somehow gets by without *any* accountants, copy machine operators or real estate appraisers. ;-) Also, I don't think you'd find all *that* many black judges and doctors on American TV, BTW. In fact, there have been protests in the U.S. that black actors (especially on TV) aren't getting very many roles at all. You also should bear in mind that some of the TV shows I suspect you are watching are set in major metropolitan areas. It wouldn't be all *that* unusual to see a few black doctors in the emergency room or judges in the courtroom in real life in the metro area where I live, so you probably shouldn't draw all that many conclusions about U.S. culture from what you see in the media. Finally, if you are seeing a disproportionate number (that is, a greater percentage than you might find in real life in the U.S. as a whole) of black actors playing judges and doctors, you do have to consider that these character actors have been cast *because they were the best actors for the parts.* It happens, it happens. It might be seen as a bit insulting automatically to conclude that these actors are being cast as "tokens." Whoa! I know this part of my post is swerving dangerously off- topic. If anyone wishes to follow up, let's go play on OT-Chatter. Naama: > I suggest that those who fight for racial diversity to be >portrayed on the screen, start directing their efforts in >rectifying the inequalities that actually exist in *reality.* Well, the screen *is* reality. Black actors have to eat too, you know. Naama: > There shouldn't. Of course. But the question isn't about "should" >but about "is." Did the author include the description because it >is part of her intrinsic vision and in the flow of the writing >process, or was it constrained upon her externally? No matter how >right it is that it *shouldn't* be different, it still undermines >the integrity of the work if it *is* different (in the author's >mind), and a change is made according to that "shouldn't." Ah, but we don't know the answer to that question. So why don't we all just shrug off the Dean Thomas change and move on? 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. Cindy From crana at ntlworld.com Sun Jun 30 22:06:40 2002 From: crana at ntlworld.com (rosie) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 23:06:40 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) References: Message-ID: <001501c22082$6a25e1a0$473468d5@xxx> No: HPFGUIDX 40609 I said: > Describing a character just as "black" only really makes sense in >Situation 1 - where we should assume from the setting that all the >other characters are white. In Britain, this is not the case (well, >not in most communities), and it clearly isn't at Hogwarts. Doing >this makes Hogwarts seem *more* monocultural because it implies >that we are in Situation 1. Cindy said: "Here, I disagree. I'll let you in on a little secret, Rosie. ;-) I have been to London, and so I know that London is very diverse. I haven't spent any appreciable time in other parts of the UK. And I would have bet actual *money* that there is almost no racial diversity at all in Scotland or other parts of the UK that are less urban than London. That is one reason, I suspect, why Lee Jordan's dreadlocks didn't register with me as a conclusive indication that he was black." 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? Cindy said: "In addition, I would have been quite sure that you wouldn't find *any* black people at a British boarding school. After all, my experience with British boarding schools is that these are the places where you will find members of the Royal Family. ;-) So, no. I disagree that stating Dean Thomas' race in the U.S. version of the book implies that Hogwarts is more monocultural than JKR intended it to be. In the U.K., maybe. In the U.S., no." and "Fair enough. As I said before, you seem to understand that boarding schools in the UK are diverse, which is something I didn't know. But if most Brits would assume Hogwarts was racially diverse, and if readers in the U.S. might *not* make that assumption, then doesn't this cry out for some sort of change to advise U.S. readers of what their UK counterparts already know? " and "For a U.S. reader like me, it is the *only* definitive indication in the first book that Hogwarts has black students -- something you had sufficient information to assume and something I didn't." I mean, fair enough if people over in America understand very little about the UK, but how far would you take this? Would you get all the classic works of literature, maybe set in other countries, and alter them to make them understandable to the modern, US reader? I have just finished my English Literature GCSE (apparently, it's about the same as the PSAT, it's the school leaving exam you take at 16) and a big part of appreciating the books we read was finding out about the society, attitudes, and so on of the setting and time. For example, we read "A View From The Bridge" (a play set in Red Hook, New York), and "Gulliver's Travels". This meant researching the politics and concerns of Jonathon Swift's time, for example, and understanding the issues that were affecting people in early 20th century Red Hook. To start off with, I didn't know too much about for example what was going on that affected Swift, and without understanding that, you don't get the full measure out of the book. It was necessary to actually read some things, do some research, and so on, to gain a deeper appreciation of the book. I absolutely could not imagine having those books bastardised just to make them "easier to understand". How *lazy* would that be? Some people in my class didn't know the word "stenographer", as that's an American word, but they were happy to use a dictionary. They probably got more out of it from being exposed to a new word. I think the play would really have lost its essence if we'd had it "translated" into "typist". You made some good points especially about Angelina, thanks, and I don't want to argue with you and drag this discussion on into the tiniest details - I'm more interested in the wider issue of whether books should be changed and so on. Interested to hear your thoughts, and if you think this is going OT, Cindy, Amandageist, or anyone, feel free to email me off list as this is, to me, an interesting topic. Rosie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hermione_ew at yahoo.com Sun Jun 30 17:58:32 2002 From: hermione_ew at yahoo.com (hermione_ew) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 17:58:32 -0000 Subject: The Secret Job of Arthur Weasley Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40610 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. He starts to play a role in CoS. He comes back to the burrow after a NIGHT at work, talking about "nine raids". If he was only looking for bewitched muggle artifacts, then why was he working at night? that work could have easily been done during the day. Then, when Harry is hidden in Borgin and Burkes, in Knockturn Alley, he overhears Lucius Malfoy talking about selling some of his "items" because the Ministy is conducting more and more raids, and his "items" would embarrass him if the ministry were to call. If Arthur was only looking for bewitched Muggle items, why would Lucius be worried? The family obviously wants nothing to do with muggles or muggleborns. I doubt that the Malfoys would waste their time bewitching muggle stuff if they don't want any contact with muggles at all. Also, Arthur said that he would love to "get Lucius for something." if he only works for the "Misuse of Muggle Artifacts" office, then it wouldn't be possible for him to "Get" Malfoy Sr. for anything. 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. There is more minor evidence in PoA. First, Arthur once again knows when Harry accidentaly blows up his aunt. Secondly, he states that "They've pulled us all off our regular jobs to look for [Sirius Black]" If EVERYONE was pulled off their jobs, how would the ministry run? Some people have to be doing their regular jobs, otherwise Muggles would find out about the wizarding world, as it is the ministry's job to keep them away from muggles. And, if Arthur was as "junior" an official as Malfoy claims in GoF, then why would he be having direct contact with Fudge? Arthur states in PoA, that Fudge didn't want Harry to know that Sirius was supposedly after him. It appears that he has been talking directly to Fudge about the entire Black situation. 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. In GoF, even more evidence is presented. First, the "running commentary" about the ministry officials. At one point he gives the names of two 'unspeakables' from the department of mysteries. If Boad and Croaker really were unspeakables, then it would follow that no one save the minister himself should even know who they are, much less a 'junior' official. Later, after everyone is home, and they are working overtime after the appearance of the dark mark, Molly states that Arthur hasn't worked over time since the days of Voldemort's reign. At the end of GoF, Dumbledore says that Arthur is well positioned to act from withing the ministry, informing key people about Voldemort's return. Dumbledore also wants Arthur to get the ministry involved under Fudge's nose. Athur is an intelligent man. If he can figure out how to take apart a car, bewitch the parts to fly, and put it back together correctly, then is is reasonable to assume that he would remember words such as ESCALATORS and ELECTRICITY. 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) From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sun Jun 30 22:51:06 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 22:51:06 -0000 Subject: Religion in the Potterverse/Fairy Godparents/BC/Hogwarts School Fees Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40611 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) and we just have this strange habit of reading Christian symbolism into them. Silly of us, I know, obviously these things don't *really* have any Christian symbolism attached to them [grin]. Pam writes: > Perhaps in secular Britain (wizarding or muggle) Christian symbols > should be seen as having a cultural significance, but not a > spiritual one. No, I think not. If you want to think of Britain as 100% secular, for whatever reason, go ahead. 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. The truth is, neither of us know their motives, and unless JKR deliberately chooses to reveal them ( and on the signs so far, she won't ) neither of us are going to find out which version is true. The real argument I was presenting in my post [40577] was that Christianity exists in the WW, just as it does in Muggle Britain, and there's no valid reason a Potterverse magician couldn't be a Christian. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Christi writes: > Also, I think in Sirius' case his role can be traced to a different > archetype--that of the "fairy godmother" (okay, godfather in his > case, but in the fairy tales it's usually a woman who gets the > job), the one who advises and aids the hero, giving them direction. > Like Sleeping Beauty's godparents, Sirius can't remove the evil in > Harry's life, but he can help out a little. I did wonder if Sirius was the 'fairy godfather' (no reason JKR shouldn't be equal ops in the 'fairy godperson' department), but while he certainly sends Harry gifts and gives him advice (as any good godparent should, 'fairy' or not), I can't remember a fairy story where the godchild had to rescue the godparent. :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosie writes: > Good point there, except most people I know who aren't of a > particular faith use "BC"; it's only the people who are really > really involved in their religion who use BCE. Is that different > where you are? 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'. Frankly, I have real difficulty imagining Wizards, who have such a total divorce from all things Muggle that they even use different money, using a 'BC' dating system just because it's the dates Muggles use. Especially when it's being used in a solely Wizarding area like Diagon Alley. JKR could have got a not dissimilar effect by putting something like 'Suppliers of wands to the Court of King Arthur'. :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Vince writes: > Does the middle-class wizarding family have an option besides > sending their progeny to an expensive private school? I think I assumed that Hogwarts school fees were what the British call 'means tested'. That is to say, there are school fees, but if your child is given a place at the school but you are unable to pay the fees, you fill in a (long) form about your family income or lack thereof. You then get part or all of the fees paid for you out of either a government grant, or charitable funds (usually set up by past pupils from poor backgrounds who became very rich in their after school lives). Some old established, rich schools can afford to have up to a quarter or a half of their pupils on these 'means tested' scholarships - you can get left an awful lot of money over several centuries. If Hogwarts pupils who make good have been leaving money to the 'poor scholars fund' (or whatever), for over 1000 years then that probably explains how the Weasley's can send seven children to Hogwarts. Pip Squeak! From ksnidget at aol.com Sun Jun 30 18:12:58 2002 From: ksnidget at aol.com (ksnidget at aol.com) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 14:12:58 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Magical education system Message-ID: <3b.28bee294.2a50a42a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40612 vincentlawyer at yahoo.com writes: >Whlie we're on the subject, what about elementary education? >From some of the on-line interviews (Scholastic). http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/site_sources.html? has links to several interviews. "Q: Do wizards and witches have to go Muggle school before they go to Hogwarts? JKR: No, they don't have to." Which tends to imply home-schooling until they go to Hogwarts. >And what about higher education or university? "Q: Do you think that you will write about Harry after he graduates from Hogwarts? Isn't there a University of Wizardry? JKR: No, there's no University for Wizards. " Presumably some magical folk aren't magical enough to get into Hogwarts (Kwikspell courses sound like they wouldn't be that needed by the students at Hogwarts) and the concern that Neville and Hagrid's parents had about them not getting in. Perhaps there is some sort of trade school or other training programs for those who will be doing the "public sector" jobs like making robes, sweets, cauldrons, etc. *Someone* has to be making all of those. Presumably to work at the Ministry one has to be a "fully- qualified" wizard which tends to imply that there are people who are not fully qualified. Ksnidget [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kkearney at students.miami.edu Sun Jun 30 22:33:57 2002 From: kkearney at students.miami.edu (corinthum) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 22:33:57 -0000 Subject: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) In-Reply-To: <001501c22082$6a25e1a0$473468d5@xxx> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40613 Cindy said: >"In addition, I would have been quite sure that you wouldn't find >*any* black people at a British boarding school. After all, my >experience with British boarding schools is that these are the >places where you will find members of the Royal Family. ;-) And Rosie replied: > 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? And now I'll write: Well, this question wasn't directed at me, but I seem to have a similar view to Cindy, so if you don't mind my weighing in... I consider myself a pretty intelligent person. Of course I realize that the UK is a diverse place. However, when I think British boarding school, I think white. This is not based on an educated assumption (most of Scotland is white, Hogwarts is in Scotland, therefore most of Hogwarts is white). It is, rather, based on fleeting images of British royalty on in uniform, etc, as Cindy mentioned. Back to the book. I assume JKR has crystal clear pictures in her mind of the characters. Although she wants to leave some things up to the readers' imaginations, I'm sure she's like us to see the characters more or less as she does. In the UK, mentioning that Hogwarts is a boarding school does not create the same mental image as it does for those of us in the U.S. who have little knowledge of boarding schools. Adding a small, unobtrusive line regarding a single character is an easy way to erase an unintentional stereotype in the minds of many potential U.S. readers. We suddenly see Hogwarts as a racially diverse area, as JKR does. - Corinth From igenite_olwyn at blueyonder.co.uk Sun Jun 30 23:19:17 2002 From: igenite_olwyn at blueyonder.co.uk (Olwyn) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 00:19:17 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Diversity in Literature & Media (WAS book differences) References: Message-ID: <000c01c2208c$8e8b4f80$0200a8c0@blueyonder.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 40614 Corinth >>most of Scotland is white, Hogwarts is in Scotland, therefore most of Hogwarts is white<< Erm... No! 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. Olly [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From divaclv at aol.com Sun Jun 30 23:45:51 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 23:45:51 -0000 Subject: Muumuus? Kilts? Wah? (WAS Re: Humour) In-Reply-To: <001d01c22057$5d02bfa0$f77663d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40615 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda Geist" wrote: > Ye Gods. I guess it falls to a L.O.O.N. to actually get up and get the books > and Look It Up. Here. Okay, confession time--at this moment, I don't own any of the books; I've only rented. (ducks tomatoes, weaponry, etc.) I'm going off of pure memory here--fortunatly, I have this freakish tendency to remember completly useless stuff. > From the Brit version (okay, Canadian, but they got the Brit version): > > "One of them was a very old wizard who was wearing a long flowery > nightgown." (p. 77, description of Archie) > > Only other odd clothing description: "'There's a bloke walking round in a > kilt and a poncho.'" (p. 72, Mr. Roberts the Muggle is the speaker, as he > greets Arthur Weasley. > > The US version's wording is the same in both instances. On a quick scan, I > couldn't find any other clothing descriptions (I thought the African > magicians might have been wearing muumuus in at least one version, but in > both it is merely long robes). > > So the word "kilt" does appear, but not in relation to Archie; Archie is > wearing a nightgown, and nowhere that I could find was any permutation of > "muumuu." Okay? > Okay, my mistake--nobody's memory is perfect. The point is Archie's in a friggin' dress. And the kilt thing had nothing to do with that; it was simply a random comment. ~Christi From divaclv at aol.com Sun Jun 30 23:55:20 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 23:55:20 -0000 Subject: Fairy Godparents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 40616 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > > > I did wonder if Sirius was the 'fairy godfather' (no reason JKR > shouldn't be equal ops in the 'fairy godperson' department), but > while he certainly sends Harry gifts and gives him advice (as any > good godparent should, 'fairy' or not), I can't remember a fairy > story where the godchild had to rescue the godparent. :-) > Well, then you also have the fact that Sirius is not all sweetness and light (hey, I like the guy, he's probably my favorite character but the man does have some issues, both reasonable and otherwise). I never said the analogy is perfect; JKR has a tendency to overturn and complicate archetypes as well as employ them. But I think some parallels can be drawn. ~Christi From ksnidget at aol.com Sun Jun 30 23:34:01 2002 From: ksnidget at aol.com (ksnidget at aol.com) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 19:34:01 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Secret Job of Arthur Weasley Message-ID: <17f.a6b068e.2a50ef69@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 40630 Hannah (Hermione's Muggle Twin) 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. Chapter on PoA Daily Prophet article: "Arthur Weasley, Head of the Misuse or Muggle Artifacts Office at the Ministry of Magic," To me that is a bit higher up than "junior official. >Also, Arthur said that he would love to "get Lucius for >something." if he only works for the "Misuse of Muggle Artifacts" >office, then it wouldn't be possible for him to "Get" Malfoy Sr. for >anything.? Well, he could be the one that tips the right people off which would still, in my book, be *getting* Malfoy. I tend to think he is a fairly likable and sociable guy. I have a suspicion that the gossip mill runs rampant in the Ministry much like it does through Hogwarts ("it is a complete secret, so of course, everyone knows") It seems he has been working there for a long time, and has had time to meet many people there. I always assumed that he *could* be working in a more prestigious job then heading up a very small dept., but for some reason (I suspect political...Either he isn't *in* with the right people, or just doesn't want to play the types of games that seem to infest any such organization) He does seem to be well connected with people in other jobs in the Ministry (getting the Dursley's fireplace hooked up to the Floo Network) but it seems to me to much more I do a favor, you do a favor....kinda thing. Something likable friendly people seem to be able to do quite well. Most of the Wizards seem to have a mental block against Muggle terms for things. Heck if everyone around you doesn't use the right words for things...... >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. I do agree that he was in the past and will be in the future part of the "old crowd" that worked closely with Dumbledore, but IMO he can do that without being in some secret job/Auror at the Ministry. I have some suspicions that being part of the "old crowd" may be part of what blocks him politically at the Ministry. Just a sense that somewhere along the way he may have made a choice to follow his principles rather than his ambition. Which would set things up nicely for Percy having to make the same sort of choice and Dad's History to come up. Ksnidget [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]