The Spying Game and other fun twists

[Amy Z]

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