Apparate/Dumbledore, detentions, Lockhart, EvilMcGonagall

[katzefan]

No: HPFGUIDX 39611

Dave Hardenbrook <DaveH47 at m...>  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" <cindysphynx at c...>  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" <skelkins at a... wrote:

<* 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):

"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 cliché.

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